From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: vu3rdd@gmail.com (Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan) Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2015 12:49:27 +0530 Subject: [TUHS] Re {TUHS} Synchronous vs Asynchronous IO in Unix In-Reply-To: <20150925232349.GA19979@mcvoy.com> References: <201509211402.t8LE2E4K016401@coolidge.cs.Dartmouth.EDU> <20150925232349.GA19979@mcvoy.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 4:53 AM, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 07:16:41PM -0400, Clem Cole wrote: >> Sadly I have heard a number of stories/expereiences like this. That's why >> the original Posix.4 specification had a new API: asynchronous system traps >> (AST) similar to what most other real time systems have had such as RSX, >> VMS or VxWorks for that matter and true async I/O calls. > > Tcl (really tk, but tcl implements it) has this. You bind an event to > a subroutine and when the event happens it jumps into that subroutine, > just like an AST (with similar rules about calling context etc). > > Mainly used for GUI programming where it fits nicely but one useful thing > is you can post fake events. That makes it possible to write regressions > for gui code which is *awesome*. > > --larry "still using tcl/tk after all these years" mcvoy > > P.S. We're not crazy, we implemented a C like language that compiles down Larry: This is really interesting. The C-like language you are referring to here is the "L" language? The introductory paper linked from here: is giving 404. Would you mind fixing the link or pointing me to another copy of the paper? My google-fu failed to find a copy of the paper elsewhere. Ramakrishnan