Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!oliveb!sun!gorodish!guy
From: guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: CURSES package for Atari ST
Message-ID: <51703@sun.uucp>
Date: 3 May 88 03:31:31 GMT
References: <711@leah.Albany.Edu> <3640@haddock.ISC.COM> <192@obie.UUCP> <207@obie.UUCP>
Sender: news@sun.uucp
Lines: 26

> I was replying in the same sarcastic vein as Karl was.  Of course, since I
> didn't follow it with 9 dozen lines of :-), you couldn't tell that, could
> you?

Actually, it was rather easy for me to tell.  The comment to which you refer
was in response, of a sort, to various replies to Karl's posting, but not to
yours; as it was a blanket response, I saw no point in separating it from my
response to your posting.

It was equally easy to tell that your posting was:

	1) carelessly aimed (while some people at Sun may be trying to convey
	   the impression that SPARC == UNIX, it is certainly not the corporate
	   position that SPARC == UNIX)

and

	2) incorrect (assuming it is the SPARC that you are castigating for its
	   lack of an instruction with the mnemonic TAS, I note again that it
	   *does* have an instruction that performs the same type of function -
	   it just doesn't happen to *call* it TAS).

I *do* note that you didn't bother trying to defend *that* portion of your
posting; I commend you for recognizing the indefensible (just as you didn't
bother trying to defend your position that any processor lacking an
increment-memory instruction is "unreasonable", or for that matter that such an
instruction is guaranteed to be atomic)....