At 10:42 AM 6/7/2002 -0400, Josh Wilmes wrote:
> > PIO_push_payer(, &pio_sys_layer, ... )
> >
> > This means renaming all of io_unix/io_win32 to io_sys
> > since you would never have 2 OS dependant layers compiled at the
> > same time. I've just been too lazy to rework it.
>
>So something like
At 03:38 PM 6/7/2002 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>Is the goal to eliminate all the stdio code, so that by release parrot
>can't run on stdio? (ie all OSes must have some sort of direct layer, and
>porting parrot involves creating such a layer if none exists)
As far as I know, yes.
>Or that parr
At 10:23 on 06/07/2002 EDT, Melvin Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 03:28 AM 6/7/2002 -0400, Josh Wilmes wrote:
>
> >It appears that the mechanism for choosing an os layer for PIO could use
> >some work, and it also appears that io_stdio is incomplete.
>
> Yes to both.
>
> The mechanism:
At 03:28 AM 6/7/2002 -0400, Josh Wilmes wrote:
>It appears that the mechanism for choosing an os layer for PIO could use
>some work, and it also appears that io_stdio is incomplete.
Yes to both.
The mechanism:
#ifndef WIN32
PIO_push_layer(interpreter, PIO_base_new_layer(&pio_unix_layer),
It appears that the mechanism for choosing an os layer for PIO could use
some work, and it also appears that io_stdio is incomplete.
Is this correct?
I'm playing with a miniparrot setup, but one of its requirements is that
it be able to run exclusively on io_stdio, which doesn't appear to be
