[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Implicit IN?

From: olafBuddenhagen
Subject: Re: Implicit IN?
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 03:03:31 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)


On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 05:34:53PM +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net, le Fri 23 Sep 2011 03:26:21 +0200, a écrit :

> > Maybe I'm missing something, but I fail to see why integers or
> > character arrays would by any more implicitly IN than other
> > types?...
> Because they can't be OUT.

Doesn't answer my question. Why can't they? In fact we have many such
parameters in the Hurd and Mach .defs...

One of us must be missing something obvious here :-(

> > Perhaps IN is simply the default in general, and it's only
> > explicitly specified in most interfaces for clearity? But that's
> > pure speculation of course :-)
> IIRC somebody said so earlier.

Must have missed it. But I just realized that device.defs is actually
the *only* interface explicitly using IN; all the other Mach and Hurd
interfaces rely on the implicit behaviour... The embarassing part is
that I actually wrote such interfaces myself already :-)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]