[Info-vax] C... the only winning move is not to play...

[David Froble]

VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <ldec5g$3pd$1 at dont-email.me>, David Froble <davef at tsoft-inc.com> writes:
>> VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>
>>> It would all have been in
>>> Macro if it were up to me but the customer said they can only read C.
>>>
>> They lie!  I submit that anyone can read BASIC, but I do recall some 
>> almost successful instances of trying to make it unreadable.
>>
>> Throughtout this whole thread I've seen in my head:
>>
>> A$ = B$ + C$ + D$ + E$ + F$ + G$ + H$ + I$ + J$ + K$ + L$ + ....
>>
>> Basic, a language that knows how to work with strings ....
>>
>> And no, I don't normally declare my variables ....
> 
> This particular piece of C has some inner mode code.  I'm extra careful with
> that using C; however, I'm not so certain I'd want to be jumping into kernel
> mode with BASIC.
> 

After thinking about this for a while, I must confess to curiosity.

I'm assuming that by "inner mode" that you're talking about kernel mode. 
  If not, then ignore the rest of this.

I've dabbled a bit at exec mode, mainly to allow some RTL code to use 
SYSLCK when the user didn't have that priv.  But I've never had the need 
to run anything in kernel made.

What would you be doing that would require running in kernel mode?  I'm 
assuming that you're working on some type of application, and not 
modifying something in VMS.

Rather curious ....


My understanding, and it's vague, is that you'd never want to invoke any 
code that might throw an error while running in kernel mode.  As Steve 
mentioned elsewhere, that leaves out any of the language modules, RTL 
modules, and such.  I'd think that that would also exclude STR$CONCAT 
and such.