From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: okamoto@granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp
Message-Id: <200007210707.DAA00593@cse.psu.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Why rio instead of 8 1/2
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 16:07:51 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e822f218-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Thanks Rob, again.

>3) This topic is discussed in the Acme paper. =20

Oh, sorry.
I have to learn more on rio's codes which is very interesting to me.

I think or hope I got the main stream of the rio by your help,  and tried=
 to
update the ktrans for this release.  Yes, I can input Jpanese partially n=
ow.=E2=98=BA
I'm still in the stage of evaluating what is most economic and elegant...
Ritchie-san's previous notes on this topic is very impressive, and I've=20
read it many times so far.  Yes, he did a great job at the previous relea=
se. =20
Why he did not do it again.  I'm now trying to do something different fro=
m it,=20
however, it seems very hard...

One questions arose from this process.
Why acme lets the /dev/consctl unwrite(read)able?

Kenji