[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla1.2 on cygwin
From: |
Robert Collins |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla1.2 on cygwin |
Date: |
Wed, 03 Mar 2004 11:58:26 +1100 |
On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 13:20, Tom Lord wrote:
> Is it? It seems to me that they involve different and unordered
> trade-offs. ("It seems to me" doesn't count for much at all in this
> context since it isn't much of an exaggeration to say, of my knowledge
> of Windows, "Didn't that evolve out of DOS?").
>
> Won't it, especially as libtla comes on line, make sense to support
> all three if that's practical?
>
> The question from my perspective, is really the impact on the code of
> any particular approach. If it's clean and isolated or clean and
> minor -- then sure, let's add it.
Complete ack. At least two approaches will be useful - 'unix-like' and
'win32-native'. And cygwin and SFU are not all that interoperable - From
what I've heard SFU is -still- a subsystem, which means interoperation
with win32 processes is marginal at best.
I'm pro supporting all three ports, provided clean code.
Rob
--
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla1.2 on cygwin, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla1.2 on cygwin, Karel Gardas, 2004/03/06
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla1.2 on cygwin, Florian Weimer, 2004/03/06
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla1.2 on cygwin, Adrian Irving-Beer, 2004/03/07
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla1.2 on cygwin, Johannes Berg, 2004/03/10
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla1.2 on cygwin, Robert Collins, 2004/03/03
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla1.2 on cygwin, Aaron Bentley, 2004/03/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla1.2 on cygwin,
Robert Collins <=
RE: [Gnu-arch-users] tla1.2 on cygwin, C. R. Oldham, 2004/03/01
[Gnu-arch-users] tla1.2 on cygwin, John F Meinel Jr, 2004/03/02
Message not available
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla1.2 on cygwin, lode . leroy, 2004/03/02