From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <9859f3a862436fa6572523ae4c7e56ae@quanstro.net>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun,  4 Jan 2009 20:32:29 -0500
In-Reply-To: <1231117954.11463.309.camel@goose.sun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] sendfd() on native Plan 9?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7949ef48-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

two emails, one response

> My personal opinion (which seems to be shared by Erik) is that it
> is a slippery slope that can be avoided. I haven't seen the
> arguments to the contrary so far.
and
>
> The above seems like a net gain, doesn't it?
>

pretty much, and then not so much.

the current set of exceptions is already somewhat of a
consternation.  i think it would be good to reduce, not
increase exceptions.  bandaids won't do that.  and will
likely break too many things to be popular.  to break
things and get away with it, you need to provide a real
reason to put up with the annoyance.

i suppose you could accuse me of not wanting to change
anything, but it's hard to be in favor of operating system
feng shui.

- erik