Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 09:58:00AM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote: >> >> Interpreters are a different issue from the exec() situation. The >> >> program being interpreted generally does not communicate with the >> >> interpreter at all. >> > >> > If the interpreted program and the interpreter can't communicate, then >> > usually nothing works. Variable values are unknown, control flow never >> > happens, and so on. >> >> The interpreted program interacts (I don't think "communicate" is the >> appropriate word) with the virtual machine (in a loose sense of the >> word) presented by the interpreter. It does not communicate with the >> actual implementation. > > This does not make any sense. Of course it communicates with the > actual implementation. It does so through the virtual machine. It > seems like you are saying that when I send this email, I am not > interacting with you, but only interacting with the keyboard.
Are you saying that by sending me that email, you are a derivative work of me? >> A regular program interacts with the registers, memory and so on >> found in the machine, not with the individual gates, electrons and >> whatnot that make up the actual hardware. > > So if I write a program that puts things on the display and reads > keyboard input, that is not interacting with the physical device? The program is interacting with something like an X server. Your program does not know, and should not care, what the X server implementation is doing. Most of them happen to draw pixels on a screen, and read keyboard input, but there are also thing like Xvfb. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
