"Nigel Rantor" <wi...@wiggly.org> wrote:
> Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: > > "Nigel Rantor" <wi...@wiggly.org> wrote: > > > >> Hendrik van Rooyen wrote: > >>> If you have any interest, contact me and I will > >>> send you the source. > >> Maybe you could tell people what the point is... > > > > Well its a long story, but you did ask... > > [snip] > > Maybe I should have said > > "why should people care" > > or > > "why would someone use this" > > or > > "what problem does this solve" > > Your explanation doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, I'm sure it > does to you. > > Why, for example, would someone use your system to pass objects between > processes (I think this is the main thing you are providing?) rather > than POSH or some other system? > I can see that my explanation passes you by completely. I said, in my original post, that a can could not leave a process. A can is exactly the same as a C pointer, only its value has been converted to a string, so that you can pass it "in band" as part of a string. That is all it does. No more, no less. Passing it to an outside process makes no sense, unless it points at an object in shared memory - else it guarantees a segfault. It is not something that would find common use - in fact, I have never, until I started struggling with my current problem, ever even considered the possibility of converting a pointer to a string and back to a pointer again, and I would be surprised if anybody else on this list has done so in the past, in a context other than debugging. Which is why I posted. This is supposed to be a newsgroup, and this is a rare occurrence, and hence news. - Hendrik -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
