tech-userlevel archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: Proposal for write(1) addition

>>> [...ptys...ptyfs...]
>> The major one is compatability.
> We had the ifdef hell before POSIX ptys were invented.  Now at least
> it is standardized.

So, unless you don't care about running on the existing installed base,
you have the same ifdef hell, exacerbated by one more option.

And probably always will; I don't expect the installed base to go away
anytime soon - for values of "soon" roughly equal to the time I expect
it to take for ptys to be replaced by something else (the first
rumblings of which have already started; see the thread about dyoung's
UI experiment ideas).

>> I'm not convinced losing the ability to expose the master-side
>> device is a good thing.  [...]
> Heh, you still get it, just not the node.

The node?  By that, I've been assuming you're talking about the device
special file in the filesystem.  That's exactly what I was talking
about: my "expose" was really "expose as something open()able".
Obviously you have some kind of handle on the master half, or ptys
could hardly work at all.

/~\ The ASCII                             Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML      
/ \ Email!           7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index