Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!purdue!i.cc.purdue.edu!j.cc.purdue.edu!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!urbsdc!aglew
From: aglew@urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: noalias comments to X3J11
Message-ID: <28700027@urbsdc>
Date: 6 Apr 88 19:04:00 GMT
References: <7753@alice.UUCP>
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:alice.UUCP:7753:urbsdc:28700027:000:1046
Nf-From: urbsdc.Urbana.Gould.COM!aglew    Apr  6 13:04:00 1988


>Interrupt routines are almost by definition esoteric, not to mention highly
>machine-specific.  Only on PCs do users commonly write their own interrupt
>routines; in more modern environments [MSDOS is a Neanderthal operating
>system, its only saving grace being some of the nifty applications that run
>on it] such things generally are confined to the bowels of the operating
>system, where they belong.

Strongly disagree. A decent signal interface should be comparable to
an interrupt routine. Too often is asynchronous communication neglected
in favour of synchronous IPC.


Andy "Krazy" Glew. Gould CSD-Urbana.    1101 E. University, Urbana, IL 61801   
    aglew@gould.com     	- preferred, if you have MX records
    aglew@xenurus.gould.com     - if you don't
    ...!ihnp4!uiucuxc!ccvaxa!aglew  - paths may still be the only way
   
My opinions are my own, and are not the opinions of my employer, or any
other organisation. I indicate my company only so that the reader may
account for any possible bias I may have towards our products.