From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <21f67c6e38ea6a23caf7fb801589997e@vitanuova.com>
To: cnielsen@pobox.com, 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] writing code
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 23:33:47 +0000
From: rog@vitanuova.com
In-Reply-To: <20050217231738.GO77074@cassie.foobarbaz.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4ae9d100-eace-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> did you read russ' original post?

yes.  i was left wondering "why?"  though.

it's seems a bit like choosing a different fixed point for a recursive
function (though i'm probably abusing terminology again here!).
the work's got to be done somehow, and changing how the multiplexing
is done doesn't really change the fact that the multiplexing has to be
done somehow - it's just an internal architecture issue.

i don't see what problem it was trying to address.

hence my question to you.