Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:5439 comp.unix.wizards:23726
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wuarchive!emory!mephisto!mcnc!ecsgate!ecsvax!utoddl
From: utoddl@uncecs.edu (Todd M. Lewis)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: UNIX semantics do permit full support for asynchronous I/O
Message-ID: <1990Aug31.142906.26633@uncecs.edu>
Date: 31 Aug 90 14:29:06 GMT
References: <126800008@.Prime.COM> <60345@lanl.gov> <1990Aug21.223350.7595@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> <11576:Aug2503:18:3790@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <27619@nuchat.UUCP> <1990Aug29.170931.10853@terminator.cc.umich.edu> <31445.26dc0466@ccavax.camb.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Lines: 17

In article <31445.26dc0466@ccavax.camb.com> merriman@ccavax.camb.com writes:
>In article <1990Aug29.170931.10853@terminator.cc.umich.edu>, 
>	rsc@merit.edu (Richard Conto) writes:
>
>> 
>> Make it simpler. Have a routine that requests an I/O operation. Another
>> routine that can check it's status. A way of specifying a routine to be
>> called when the I/O operation completes might be yet another option.
>
>Sure sounds like VMS QIO calls.

Sounds like the Amiga's OS to me.  And UNIX doesn't do this?
I'm trying to be a UNIX nut in training, but I keep hearing about
these new tricks that seem to be rather hard to teach the
old dog.  I'd hate to wake up in 5 years and realize that UNIX
had become to workstations what MS-DOS is to PCs now.  Somebody
pinch me.