> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Hughes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 3:31 PM
> To: Dan Sugalski
> Cc: Patrick Spinler; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '
> Subject: Re: open source, porting, etc. (was RE: more observations
> (andquestions) on the SYS$I18N_LOCALE dirs)
>
>
> Dan Sugalski wrote:
> [...]
> > What we need to do to get things 'right' is to rewrite
> stdio and implement
> > flock/fcntl properly. The problem with that is that it
> needs to be done in
> > a way that meshes with the rest of VMS (what's the use of a
> record lock
> > that only perl programs can see?) and that can't really be
> done without the
> > aid of the OS and RMS folks.
>
> Not that it's an easy task, but wouldn't modifying the PerlIO
> abstraction
> layer to only use RMS calls accomplish this? It would require someone
> who really knows his XABs from his RABs, but could still be done using
> only the available RMS interface.
>
"Not that it's an easy task". Yes, that's an understatement.
Sigh... I hate to beat a dead horse, but you see, what you are
proposing is _exactly_ what the authors of the C RTL have already
done. Even if it's just too far out to maintain our own C RTL to
link against, we could at least extract the relevant routines from
the source for the existing C RTL, make necessary changes for our
custom requirements and use these in VMS.C.
Sure, it's maintaining parallel development copies of routines to
do very similar things. But, that's what we're doing _now_, but
we're unable to see what the other fork is doing.
-------------------------- Impure Personal Opinion ----------------------------
-Jordan Henderson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
