At 01:02 PM 8/2/00 +0900, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:37:49PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > Right. That was my point. (The original poster wanted to pull IO out of
> the
> > core entirely)
>
>Ah. Barbarians-at-gates approach, then.
Damn straight. Dump the boiling oil! :)
>On the other hand, there is a lot of rubbish that *can* go out of core;
>I'd like to see core being syntax-plus-essentials. System V IPC, for
>instance, isn't essential. I think "essential" could be easily defined as
>"stuff which is portable pretty much everywhere"; the socket stuff can go
>into a separate library, for instance.
I'd actually like to see some work on the shared memory and IPC stuff on
the language list--it'd be nice to have them in as mostly-primitives,
though in a more platform-neutral way.
>This probably wouldn't affect speed too drastically because these things
>could always be linked in statically a la Dynaloader.
Or dynamically via magic, but that's a separate issue. (I have a Plan! But
not, alas, an RFC. Yet...)
>But this is now an internals issue, so the list football starts again. Don't
>you just love arbitrary distinctions?
Yes I do, actually. The details of implementing semi-core things (which
live between a module and an opcode) will likely make all sorts of people's
eyes glaze over, and that's just not useful. Which is why any followups to
this will go over to the internals list.
From a language perspective, I have a scheme to allow us to yank all the
cruft (sockets, shm, messages, localtime...) out into separate libraries,
yet pull them in on demand without needing a use.
>VMS must die!
I think not. "Those who do not understand VMS are doomed to re-implemement
it. Badly." As the linux folks are finding, but that's a separate issue
entirely.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
