[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Re: New function proposal
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
RE: Re: New function proposal |
Date: |
Thu, 15 Feb 2007 04:56:41 -0500 |
On 15-Feb-2007, address@hidden wrote:
| > When you work it out sent me a patch
|
| OK, here's an updated version:
| - move popen2 code into lo-sysdep.cc => octave_popen2
| - keep popen2 interface in octave_syscalls class
| - modify pipe interface to separate read/write ends of the pipe
|
| While doing this, I realized that the POSIX implementation of
| popen2 relies on members of octave_syscalls, so I had to
| cross-include lo-sysdep.h and oct-syscalls.h, because I move the
| entire implementation in lo-sysdep.cc. Another possibility would
| be to keep the POSIX implementation in oct-syscalls.cc and put
| only the other impl in lo-sysdep.cc. Which one is better?
For now, please leave the POSIX code in lo-syscalls and put the
Windows code in sysdep.
Thanks,
jwe
- Re: New function proposal, (continued)
- Re: New function proposal, Paul Kienzle, 2007/02/13
- Re: New function proposal, John W. Eaton, 2007/02/14
- Re: New function proposal, Michael Goffioul, 2007/02/15
- Re: New function proposal, David Bateman, 2007/02/15
- Re: New function proposal, John W. Eaton, 2007/02/15
- Re: New function proposal, David Bateman, 2007/02/15
RE: Re: New function proposal, michael . goffioul, 2007/02/13
RE: Re: New function proposal, michael . goffioul, 2007/02/15
RE: Re: New function proposal, michael . goffioul, 2007/02/15
- RE: Re: New function proposal,
John W. Eaton <=
RE: Re: New function proposal, michael . goffioul, 2007/02/15
RE: RE: Re: New function proposal, michael . goffioul, 2007/02/15
RE: Re: New function proposal, michael . goffioul, 2007/02/15
RE: Re: New function proposal, michael . goffioul, 2007/02/15