i'm not asking for C11, though if we wanted MH to attract new users
rather than just serving a declining/graying population, we would
embrace the hell out of C11.
Really? I kind of view those things are orthogonal. I don't think
users really care too much about the language revision you're using;
they care about features provided. Which admittedly we're not so great
on, but I think we're getting better. We could switch nmh to F66 and
if we had improved MIME support I think everyone would be happy. Well,
other than it might be hard to FIND a F66 compiler nowadays and we might
face a revolt just on principal from some of the greybeards here, but
you get the idea :-) But if you think our reliance on C89 is holding
us back, please, elaborate! I think we've pushed pretty hard on POSIX
as a minimum and I think that's been for the best for us.
I looked at the C11 Wikipedia page, and I do see a few things that might
help us (like improved Unicode support), but I don't think those are
showstoppers for any proposed work.
with the quality and maturity of the MH core team, both in what they
write and what they review, i am totally unconcerned about the usual
problems that come with midlevel programmers encountering threads in
their first large system. so, you're right in general, but who cares in
this specific case?
Assuming I'm part of the MH core team (I'm not sure exactly WHO is on
it), thanks for the vote of confidence, Paul! But I think on further
reflection I'll stick with the simple lock/sleep/retry cycle. It just
seems like adding a dependency on threads just for this small bit of
code (which I suspect will rarely be invoked in the real world) just
seems like too much complexity for any possible efficiency gains.
--Ken
_______________________________________________
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers(_at_)nongnu(_dot_)org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers