Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:19:35 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: /dev/zero support
In-Reply-To: <199910201252.OAA19463@propus.lu.erisoft.se>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.991020161550.23703C-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, Martin Stromberg wrote:

> I'm just brain storming a little here...

Aren't we all?...

> Or if we realise (and accept) that we only need the distinction
> library FSEXT versus application FSEXT, there's no need to add a
> priority indication.

You forget about third-party libraries.  There's libc, then there's 
second-level libraries like libdbg.a, then there are libsocket, etc.  
Only after all that, there's an application.  Each one of these levels 
can install an FSEXT (libdbg.a already does), and the order of invocation 
should be app->lib->lib->libc.a->DOS.

> The library should be able (manually) to define
> an order and make sure that one extension call the other which calls
> yet another in the right order. Right?

How can several libraries define the order manually?  I don't think 
there's a provision for this in the current fsext code.