Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2000 13:40:31 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: "Peter J. Farley III" cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: New versions of perl require "flock" or working "fcntl(fh, F_SETLK/W,...)" In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.0.20001022143136.00b03d60@pop5.banet.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Peter J. Farley III wrote: > Is there any way in the world we can actually implement these > functions, perhaps using "_dos_lock" or a copy of the "_dos_lock" code > under the covers? `flock' can certainly be implemented using the DOS file-locking functions, at least for some of the features supported by `flock' on Unix. It's only a question of someone sitting down and coding it. (If you do that, please also add the corresponding functionality to `fcntl'.) Note that, apart of `_dos_lock', there's also `lock', that does similar things. > I realize this leads to problems in plain DOS when > no SHARE.EXE is loaded, but a documented requirement to load SHARE.EXE > to use the new perl functions or to use perl's "flock" emulation (as > well as those functions of "fcntl", of course) would be OK with most > folk, wouldn't it? In general, I won't like telling people to load SHARE. SHARE is evil; see section 9.7 of the FAQ for one aspect of that evilness. Are you sure you really need SHARE.EXE on plain DOS? Assuming there's only a single program running at any given time (give or take nested programs), why would you need that? More generally, perhaps it would be a good idea to explain to Perl non-users, such as myself, what does this "Storable" for persistent objects do, to put this discussion into a proper context.