AW: [MiNT] Proposal for SLB extension

["Julian Reschke" <reschke@muenster.de>]

First of all, I am annoyed as much as you of Outlook's inability to do
proper quoting. However, I have my reasons to use it. If you don't like my
post, just ignore them.

No to your *technical* comment: it might not be a call, but it *is* code
which resides within the kernel. Konrad and I have continued the discussion
and I understand his reasoning. However it is A Good Thing to understand
what's going on before rushing out yet another special case in the API.

Related to this: I don't see a lot of people using SLBs under MiNT if it
doesn't support SLBPATH to locate them.

-----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-mint@fishpool.com [mailto:owner-mint@fishpool.com]Im Auftrag
von Thomas Binder
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 5. April 2000 20:18
An: MiNT List
Betreff: Re: [MiNT] Proposal for SLB extension


Hi!

First, could you please stick to writing your own text _beneath_ the
original mail? See http://learn.to/quote/ ...

On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 01:06:53AM +0200, Julian Reschke wrote:
> that sounds a bit like a religious thing. It certainly *is* able to use
> curproc. Maybe it's not a good kernel design -- agreed...

Sorry, but since when are calls of functions provided by an SLB kernel
calls? Slbopen() returns a generic function pointer, and the application
using the SLB is supposed to call the functions through this pointer,
not by doing kernel traps.


Ciao

Thomas


--
Thomas Binder (Gryf @ IRCNet)  gryf@hrzpub.tu-darmstadt.de
PGP-key available on request!  binder@rbg.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de