From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] GNU Make Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2004 18:24:29 +0200 From: lucio@proxima.alt.za In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9087211e-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Ron Minnich wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Charles Forsyth wrote: > >> Numeric codes are a bad idea, that plan 9 was well rid of from unix. >> they do not scale well in a distributed system with distributed >> development. > > I agree with everything you're saying. But if you're going to > interoperate with Unix systems, there aren't a lot of options. Wait a moment, maybe there are options? Hm, maybe not, but perhaps somebody can sanity check me here. It seems to me that the crucial factor lies with the return codes from the Plan 9 system calls when used by APE simulation procedures. Perhaps we can arrange the core system calls to return error identification "codes" that are then readily translated both in APE and in P9 to the results required in that environment. Would the cost be excessive? Somehow, considering that this happens only on error conditions, I should think not. Would it be difficult to do? Others here are better qualified to judge. In particular, those very authorities are best qualified to recommend how to approach this. ++L