From: jdb9608@cs.rit.edu (John D Beutel)
Message-Id: <9110231912.AA00679@junior.rit.edu>
Subject: Re: Standardization Ideas....
To: LEEK@qucdn.queensu.ca
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 91 15:28:07 EDT
Cc: glove-list@karazm.math.uh.edu
In-Reply-To: <199110222259.AA22487@karazm.math.UH.EDU>; from "LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA" at Oct 22, 91 6:51 pm
> I hope I have not gone way of tangent here.    I feel if we are going
> to have a standard here, then we should do it right ie. not to limit
> ourselves to a particular product or model (eg to save 5 machine
> cycles) , allow for expansion in terms of new devices and/or higher
> resolution. Some of the hard coder there might want to argue
> efficiency with me about the extra processing required...

I agree!  A few microseconds every loop, much longer once in the
initialization, or more complex implementations of the standard
interface are all worth it.

> As for the interrupt/poll, leave it to the particular machine.  I like the
> device model on my Amiga that provides both sync & async I/O.  Why force
> your particular model (TSR, Interrupt, Polling, Multitasking) on others ???
> 
> K. C. Lee

I think it would be good to have the standard provide both, too.

--
J. David Beutel  11011011  jdb9608@cs.rit.edu  "I am, therefore I am."