From: "deckerben" Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp References: Subject: Re: djgpp or perl? Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 23:23:51 +0100 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Lines: 38 Message-ID: <3dd17e41$0$10577$9b622d9e@news.freenet.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.7.10.35 X-Trace: 1037139522 news.freenet.de 10577 213.7.10.35:1081 X-Complaints-To: abuse AT freenet DOT de To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com "Eli Zaretskii" wrote in message news:Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1021112081039 DOT 15374F AT is... > > On Mon, 11 Nov 2002, deckerben wrote: > > Hmmmm... is it necessary to stick to that convention? > > We cannot change DOS system calls, can we? Sorry, I guess more plainly asked, should I change the termcap implementation to mimic the DOS EOF. My Termcap library is a strait port from Debian or some place, not the one from Delorie. But the signals were still aquired from DJGPP in the build. But from the tone of this thread, it doesn't really seem like a problem... that was really all I meant... I wasn't trying to change DOS. You are correct that PythonD developement is following a *totally* different philosophy than the Perl port. Variety is the spice of life :-) > The possibility of an interactive program to interpret Ctrl-D as EOF > depends on how it reads its input. If it does so with standard DOS calls > (via `read', `getc' or other library functions which call DOS I/O), this > isn't possible without some very painful tweaking of the program's > original code (this is a port, remember?). In contrast, if input is read > via termios or other console-specific interface, the task is much easier, > since those I/O methods bypass normal DOS calls. > > So what Python does is not necessarily applicable to Perl. ciao Ben