On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 02:50:22PM +1100, Bruce Ellis wrote:
>
> mash has a make builtin. very brief, as all the shell type stuff in mk
> goes away..
>
I seem to remember that the mash source was lost?
++L
no. it was the last thing i wrote for the bidness unit.
brucee
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Lucio De Re wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 02:50:22PM +1100, Bruce Ellis wrote:
>>
>> mash has a make builtin. very brief, as all the shell type stuff in mk
>> goes away..
>>
> I seem to remember tha
One of the ugliest interface in Unix is passing a file descriptor between
processes [1]. Does Plan9 provide any mechanism for it?
[1]
http://book.chinaunix.net/special/ebook/addisonWesley/APUE2/0201433079/ch17lev1sec4.html
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
On Fri Nov 5 06:32:55 EDT 2010, kir...@shutemov.name wrote:
> One of the ugliest interface in Unix is passing a file descriptor between
> processes [1]. Does Plan9 provide any mechanism for it?
>
> [1]
> http://book.chinaunix.net/special/ebook/addisonWesley/APUE2/0201433079/ch17lev1sec4.html
th
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 12:29:46PM +0200, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> One of the ugliest interface in Unix is passing a file descriptor between
> processes [1]. Does Plan9 provide any mechanism for it?
>
You can pass fds in channels between threads, but for processes you
should look at #s for g
see srv(3)
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/magic/man2html/3/srv
On 5 November 2010 10:29, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> One of the ugliest interface in Unix is passing a file descriptor between
> processes [1]. Does Plan9 provide any mechanism for it?
>
> [1]
> http://book.chinaunix.net/special/ebook/a
On Fri Nov 5 07:36:42 EDT 2010, rogpe...@gmail.com wrote:
> see srv(3)
> http://plan9.bell-labs.com/magic/man2html/3/srv
>
> On 5 November 2010 10:29, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > One of the ugliest interface in Unix is passing a file descriptor between
> > processes [1]. Does Plan9 provide any
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 7:41 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Fri Nov 5 07:36:42 EDT 2010, rogpe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > see srv(3)
> > http://plan9.bell-labs.com/magic/man2html/3/srv
> >
> > On 5 November 2010 10:29, Kirill A. Shutemov
> wrote:
> > > One of the ugliest interface in Unix is passing
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 08:16:30AM -0400, Venkatesh Srinivas wrote:
>
> '#s' is a pretty unfortunate interface,
> though...
>
Maybe. But it is only a tool and as such it can be replaced or augmented.
It's unlikely that Plan 9 will retain its integrity without #s, but
that does not mean that an a
> Currently, if your processes have a common parent, you can use rfork; if
> not, you must resort to #s. '#s' is a pretty unfortunate interface,
> though...
okay, practicially speaking, what's wrong with #s, and what do you propose?
- erik
Quite right:
http://code.google.com/p/inferno-os/source/browse/#hg/appl/cmd/mash
Although, no doubt brucee has a new, improved version not fit for mere
mortals to gaze upon.
-eric
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Bruce Ellis wrote:
> no. it was the last thing i wrote for the bidness u
> http://code.google.com/p/inferno-os/source/browse/#hg/appl/cmd/mash
that one is indeed fairly old, much as we received it, except for
changes to fit any changes in the environment, but
http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/man/1/mash.html
and
http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/man/1/mash-m
Hi,
In the paper 'Semaphores in Plan 9' by Sape and Russ Cox, there was this
note:
"The performance of the semaphore-based lock implementation is sometimes
much better and never noticeably worse than the spin locks. We will replace
the spin lock implementation in the Plan 9 distribution soon."
As
I just did a pull and a recompile.
The kernel boots to the point where it wants to get the root. I tell it the
same root server I used before the rebuild, and the prompt comes back again
asking for the root.
Any thoughts on where I should look?
usb/hub... root is from (tcp)[tcp]: 192.168.1.250
OOPS dumb mistake on my part... I should have just pressed enter there.
I really ought to script that.
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 9:41 AM, David Leimbach wrote:
> I just did a pull and a recompile.
>
> The kernel boots to the point where it wants to get the root. I tell it
> the same root server I
On Friday 05 of November 2010 14:31:01 Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
> Quite right:
> http://code.google.com/p/inferno-os/source/browse/#hg/appl/cmd/mash
>
> Although, no doubt brucee has a new, improved version not fit for mere
> mortals to gaze upon.
A honest question: what is the rationale
> A honest question: what is the rationale for merging functionality of make and
> shell into one?
Use your imagination
Nick
Google just announced a code-in. Is Plan9 participating?
EBo --
On Friday 05 of November 2010 18:18:44 Nick LaForge wrote:
> > A honest question: what is the rationale for merging functionality of
> > make and shell into one?
>
> Use your imagination
Tried, failed.
To me, make is a tool for generating an acyclic, directed graph of
dependencies between b
> To me, make is a tool for generating an acyclic, directed graph of
> dependencies between build steps from some explicit and some wildcard rules
> -- and then traversing it in a sensible order. How's that for daily use shell?
your focus is too narrowed on building. a sequence of commands piping
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 10:32 AM, dexen deVries wrote:
> On Friday 05 of November 2010 18:18:44 Nick LaForge wrote:
> > > A honest question: what is the rationale for merging functionality of
> > > make and shell into one?
> >
> > Use your imagination
>
> Tried, failed.
> To me, make is a tool
On Friday 05 of November 2010 18:39:14 andrey mirtchovski wrote:
> > To me, make is a tool for generating an acyclic, directed graph of
> > dependencies between build steps from some explicit and some wildcard
> > rules -- and then traversing it in a sensible order. How's that for
> > daily use sh
> > -- and then traversing it in a sensible order. How's that for daily use
> > shell?
> >
> >
> Why is a shell that can generate acyclic digraphs of dependencies bad?
> Someone clearly found a use for it at some point or it wouldn't have been
> done.
it is silly bloat if it's not an essential pa
On 5 November 2010 18:14, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> > -- and then traversing it in a sensible order. How's that for daily use
>> > shell?
>> >
>> >
>> Why is a shell that can generate acyclic digraphs of dependencies bad?
>> Someone clearly found a use for it at some point or it wouldn't have been
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 22:20:04 - Charles Forsyth
wrote:
> >But why isn't the source for mk (3929 lines w/ headers, okay 4661 with mkfil
> e and acid)
> >at least as long as all that Java in the ant distribution (213151 lines)?
> >That's a lot of catching up to do.
> >The market has clearly spo
> > ('&', '&&', '||', if, '|', 'and '`{}') with something general
> > enough to replace mk, you'd be on to something.
>
> i did a mash-inspired version of mk as an inferno shell module once.
> it required no new syntax (although it could be confused by
> files named ":"...)
what you did was very
Code-in? Could you elaborate?
On Nov 5, 2010 1:22 PM, "EBo" wrote:
> Google just announced a code-in. Is Plan9 participating?
>
> EBo --
>
>
'Summer of code' for high school students?
Frankly, looking at its phrasing, it just looks like open-outsourcing
on a whole new level.
Nick
On 11/5/10, Jacob Todd wrote:
> Code-in? Could you elaborate?
> On Nov 5, 2010 1:22 PM, "EBo" wrote:
>> Google just announced a code-in. Is Plan9 particip
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 12:07 PM, dexen deVries wrote:
> On Friday 05 of November 2010 14:31:01 Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
>> Quite right:
>> http://code.google.com/p/inferno-os/source/browse/#hg/appl/cmd/mash
>>
>> Although, no doubt brucee has a new, improved version not fit for mere
>> mort
On Fri Nov 5 16:06:59 EDT 2010, nicklafo...@gmail.com wrote:
> 'Summer of code' for high school students?
>
> Frankly, looking at its phrasing, it just looks like open-outsourcing
> on a whole new level.
i don't think that's accurate. the tasks need to
be small enough and easy enough for a 12-1
> i don't think that's accurate. the tasks need to
> be small enough and easy enough for a 12-17 year old
> student to resonably get one done in a week. it would be
> much easier to just do these tasks oneself than to even
> write up the task, let alone walk a student through the
> problem-solvin
i wish #s had a directory structure and enforced group permissions.
On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 5:21 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> Currently, if your processes have a common parent, you can use rfork; if
>> not, you must resort to #s. '#s' is a pretty unfortunate interface,
>> though...
>
> okay, pract
Code-in? Could you elaborate?
http://code.google.com/gci
EBo --
i don't think that's accurate. the tasks need to
be small enough and easy enough for a 12-17 year old
student to resonably get one done in a week. it would be
much easier to just do these tasks oneself than to even
write up the task, let alone walk a student through the
problem-solving process
> A honest question: what is the rationale for merging functionality of make and
> shell into one?
at the time, people were pushing more and more scripting or programming language
functionality into accretions of the original make, and someone observed that
it might be better
instead to put a sma
i can answer that one easily. that's why it's called mash rather than
"random marketting name". the intention was to replace plan9 rc with a
shell that was maintainable and had loadable modules. i wrote it in
limbo to show it works, damned well. the first requirement was a make
loadable. it's not b
36 matches
Mail list logo
