From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@9fans.net Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 09:43:31 +0200 From: lucio@proxima.alt.za In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] Go and 21-bit runes (and a bit of Go status) Topicbox-Message-UUID: 90d704c6-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > And for the libbio changes, I=E2=80=99m more opposed to the four functi= ons > Bgetle2, Bgetle4, Bputle2, and Bputle4 and the odd use of the > BPUTC && BPUTLE4 macros. Those implementations are found in other > portions of the code, not specific to libbio, and seem to be > grafted on in a slightly off manner. That said, I=E2=80=99ll gladly > change my mind if the p9p, Inferno, and a few other forks of the > libbio source give it their blessing. To date, none have chimed > in to contribute to the conversation in any way so I=E2=80=99m more tha= n > happy to use a patch in Go to still use Plan 9=E2=80=99s libbio but pul= l > in the four new functions and the macros and go from there. I'd like to hear more from you about the (mis)use of Bgetle* and friends (not the macros, we all agree on these). I think we ought to prepare a submission to Bell Labs for a reasoned inclusion of these functions in the library (and the corresponding B*be ones, which for some reason Go does not need (?!)). As for the macros, I know Russ was never in favour of using them, we may have a case to have them rescinded :-) I suspect that they would all have been dropped, if Russ had known where to look for them. If memory serves, he reverted a CL, but not all pertinent CLs, possibly on request from (members of) the Plan 9 faction. ++L