From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] dhog the corruptor!
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:50:20 EST."
             <20011113235023.C50A519A4A@mail.cse.psu.edu>
From: Quinn Dunkan <quinn@barf.ugcs.caltech.edu>
Message-Id: <20011114003429.34D279C404@barf.ugcs.caltech.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 16:34:24 -0800
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 21fe0be8-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025



> I don't care about python or perl (so shoot me!).  But my experiences
> with limbo have taught me that loadable modules can be a powerful
> tool.  Limbo also has type signatures, which I have no plans to add
> at this stage.

Yeah, trying to maintain static signatures is a whole other kettle of wax.  I
was thinking of dynamically typed languages, though.

> > If the linker can write relocation information, would that
> > make it easier to write a dlopen()-like function?
>
> We're not trying to load actual libraries here, but rather modules
> of executable code.  Said modules will have a single entry point
> (which can be a struct, as it is for device drivers).

That'll work well enough for me.  Single entry point could be a struct of
generic object pointers or a function that installs names in a namespace.

Cool!

forsyth:
> type checking is often ignored in these interfaces.
> with static linking #include and mk are often adequate if
> not perfect, but dynamic linking increases the chances for
> error.

AFAICT, though, dynamically typed languages don't have to worry about it.
Skeptics would say "that's because the chances for error are already at
maximum and can't be increased" :)