From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] dull question #1 From: "rob pike" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-krkhxzjibwpazjzmxittymflqx" Message-Id: <20010814124750.E6F4619A4F@mail.cse.psu.edu> Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 08:46:19 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: db399e7a-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-krkhxzjibwpazjzmxittymflqx Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > could anyone explain me, why (the hell) is the snarf buffer in sam > different from the system-wide snarf buffer (or is it just rio's?) Hell has nothing to do with it. 1200 baud modems do. Sam was originally written for the Blit, which had a 1200-baud connection. It was decided that updating the global snarf buffer for every cut or paste would make cutting and pasting too slow, so sam has its own snarf buffer. People got used to it, and there are advantages (and disadvantages) to keeping them separate. For example, one can have a ready-to-send compilation command in the window system's snarf buffer and not have to re-snarf it every time you edit: just sam away, then go to the shell and hit 'send' with button 2. But the real answer is 1200-baud history. -rob --upas-krkhxzjibwpazjzmxittymflqx Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from plan9.cs.bell-labs.com ([135.104.9.2]) by plan9; Tue Aug 14 08:41:21 EDT 2001 Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by plan9; Tue Aug 14 08:41:19 EDT 2001 Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.20.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 304E119A54; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 08:41:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cejchan.gli.cas.cz (cejchan.gli.cas.cz [147.231.139.4]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id E22E119A4F for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 08:40:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from cej by cejchan.gli.cas.cz with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 15WdeE-00006f-00 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Tue, 14 Aug 2001 14:50:18 +0200 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Message-Id: X-Mailer: TkMail 4.0beta9 From: pac Subject: [9fans] dull question #1 Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Archive: Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 14:50:18 +0200 Hi, could anyone explain me, why (the hell) is the snarf buffer in sam different from the system-wide snarf buffer (or is it just rio's?) Regards, Peter. -- Peter A Cejchan biologist Acad. Sci., Prague, CZ --upas-krkhxzjibwpazjzmxittymflqx--