From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dexen deVries <dexen.devries@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Date: Tue,  5 Apr 2011 18:28:32 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-20+; KDE/4.5.5; x86_64; ; )
References: <86fwpz55nj.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
	<BANLkTik=fh5sAr5cR+PRNGD+LJETeOgyqA@mail.gmail.com>
	<86vcythf8h.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
In-Reply-To: <86vcythf8h.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201104051828.37808.dexen.devries@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Making read(1) an rc(1) builtin?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c9f5d478-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Monday 04 of April 2011 23:35:26 smiley@zenzebra.mv.com wrote:
> (...)
> I know that using awk(1) is a possibility, but awk(1) still has to
> system() every "test -e", just like rc(1) does.=20
> (...)

instead of "test -e" (and other object-related tests), why not to pipe from=
=20
awk to plumb (the program) or to /mnt/plumb/send? i guess plumber is the=20
default `dispatch-if-object-exists' mechanism in p9.

using the `plumb' program would require exactly one rfork()/exec() for one=
=20
message you decide in awk to pass through -- less than one per click. even=
=20
better, piping to /mnt/plumber/send is just one open()/write(). your script=
 is=20
free to add and/or change plumber rules upon start.

=2D-=20
dexen deVries

[[[=E2=86=93][=E2=86=92]]]

``In other news, STFU and hack.''
mahmud, in response to Erann Gat's ``How I lost my faith in Lisp''
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3D2308816