[M3devel] ***SPAM*** Re: Probably missing too much of development sycle, but WTF?

[Jay]

> AF_UNIX
 
 
I'll try to make another pass through and put back unused constants, I guess.
 
 
At some point I erred toward removing unused stuff, because everything present was a correctness and portability issue.
 
Though I mainly only did such removal with Cygwin, on the basis of it never really existing as a port so the initial version could be minimal.
I think, maybe I removed other?
I also removed userthread support from PPC_LINUX and maybe NetBSD/i386.
It was broken for all platforms and remains so for all Linux platforms.
 
 
Later I developed more portable techniques so it becomes more acceptable to leave stuff in, but convert it to be correct and portable.
 
 
Constants are easy.
 
 
> stuct_sockaddr_un structure
 
 
Structs though are problematic.
You end up wanting to wrap all the functions that use them.
Unless they are large structs and then you don't want the waste and you are either stuck, or you maybe wrap at the next level up.
 
 
This is an area actually where we still clone the headers, still work to do to make it portable and safe.
 
 
> make_dir
 
 
No I had forgotten but I see it searching the web.
You need the dots smushed out?
 
 
 - Jay



----------------------------------------
> From: dragisha at m3w.org
> To: jay.krell at cornell.edu
> Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 07:41:34 +0200
> CC: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] ***SPAM*** Re: Probably missing too much of development sycle, but WTF?
>
> Then please be complete :)
>
> AF_UNIX is missing, and also stuct_sockaddr_un structure.
>
> Yes I know how to add it. Yes you're pretty radical these days, so
> please do it your way so you don't have to edit my patch :)
>
> Also - you maybe remember make_dir problem I've reported few months (?)
> ago... I've narrowed it to situation where my earlier patch sets
> CM3_INSTALL_PREFIX. It started to happen some months after I patched it,
> and it happens only when shipping m3core.
>
> On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 14:37 -0700, jay.krell at cornell.edu wrote:
>> Yes a little unfortunate but very portable.
>>
>> - Jay (phone)
>>
>> On May 19, 2009, at 10:27 AM, Dragiša Durić wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> VARIABLES?
>>>
>>> Now every1 who was using CASE with error results has to adapt one's
>>> code?
>>>
>>> What is rationale here? Portability?
>>>
>>> TIA!
>>>
>>> INTERFACE Uerror;
>>>
>>> FROM Ctypes IMPORT int;
>>>
>>> (* CONST *)
>>>  VAR EACCES: int;
>>>  VAR EADDRINUSE: int;
>>>  VAR EADDRNOTAVAIL: int;
>>>  VAR EAGAIN: int;
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dragiša Durić 
> --
> Dragiša Durić 
>