Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily

On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 14:13:29 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wibbled:

In article <vlioum$24bqm$1@dont-email.me>,  <Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:

On Mon, 6 Jan 2025 16:39:49 -0000 (UTC)
Thats not the same as the program itself being asynch.

>
Isn't it?  The point is that the program kicks off multiple

Not, it isn't. Using operating system facilities is standard programming, its
not asych programming whereby the program execution will be automatically
be diverted when an operation completes.

Thats not proper asych, its still sequential. Proper asynch is when the
program execution path is directly modified by external events. Otherwise
you could claim simply using the standard file I/O system is asynchronous
programming as there's no guarantee that any data has been written to the

disk

before write(), fprintf() etc return.

>
This is conflating multiple things.  Most IO operations dealing
with the actual hardware _are_ asynchronous (this is what
McIlroy meant in the quote I posted earlier).  The system call
interface gives the program the illusion of those happening
sequentially, but that's not how the devices really work.

And? By your definition its still asynchronous programming.

Sure, but as I've said before, signals should only set flags to be processed
later.

>
You said that, but that flies in the face of 50 years of
evidence to the contrary and the letter of the standard.  This

Please don't just make stuff up.