HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: scherrer@mtxinu.COM (Deborah Scherrer)
Subject: Re: How and where can i get mach?
Organization: mt Xinu, Berkeley, CA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 21:09:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.212619@pxt.dsg.dec.com> mishra@pxt.dsg.dec.com (Alok Mishra) writes:
>
>	Hi,
>		I am interested in getting mach for my 386 pc,How can
>	I get mach without  getting AT & T source licesnse.
>
>							Thanks
>							Alok Kumar

A version of Mach for i386/486 machines is available from
mt Xinu.  We supply both the integrated (2.5/2.6) kernel
and the microkernel.   You need not have an AT&T source license,
since this is a binary product.   However, we do include the
sources for Mach 3.0, which don't require AT&T licensing.

Source products for the entire package are available as well,
but only for AT&T licensees.

For more information about mt Xinu's Mach products, contact
mtxinu-mach@mtxinu.com or (510) 644-0146.

-- 
Deborah Scherrer                                 scherrer@mtxinu.com
Mt Xinu, Inc.                               ..!uunet!mtxinu!scherrer
2560 Ninth Street
Berkeley, CA  94710                                     510-644-0146
Newsgroups: comp.os.mach
From: chinlu@x1sun9 (Chin-Lu Shieh Openwin)
Subject: mach porting
Organization: Computer Center Of NCU in R.O.C.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 07:21:49 GMT

Hi,

I need help/reference regarding porting mach 3.0 to sparc station 2 platform. 
(The source is from mach.cs.cmu.edu.) 

Your help will be greatly expected & appreciated.

Sincerely yours,
Chin-Lu Shieh
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Chin-Lu Shieh
Industrial Technology Research Institute
Computer & Communication Research Labs.

X100, Bldg.14, 195 Sec. 4. Chung Hsing Rd.,
Chutung, Hsinchu, Taiwan 31015, R.O.C.
Tel: 886-35-917331
Fax: 886-35-917503

Email: chinlu@x1sun8.ccl.itri.org.tw

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


Newsgroups: comp.os.mach
From: mmead@nyx.cs.du.edu (Matt Mead)
Subject: Mach on a 486
Summary: X486 with Diamond Stealth etc.
Keywords: 486 Mach
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 13:38:37 GMT


   Hi...I have been considering getting Mach 386i....MSD...I was just
wondering, does anyone know how fast this will be on a 486?  I have seen
the binary for an X486 server on the net....does this server run more
quickly on a 486 then does the X386 server?  What are the differences? 
Also....does anyone know of how well the 'talk' daemon will work with
Mach?  I am mainly going to be using it for networking, so I want that
kind of stuff to pretty much run flawlessly.  Also, is there a Netrek port
to Mach that I can find comiled on the net?  Thanks in advance for any
response to these questions :)



Matthew C. Mead
mmead@vtssi.vt.edu
mmead@meadmc.async.vt.edu
mmead@nyx.cs.du.edu
"To know everything would be impractical; access time would be exceedingly
high"

Newsgroups: comp.os.mach
From: pkc@scs.carleton.ca (Peter Choynowski)
Subject: Sample sendmail.cf file ?
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:37:18 GMT


I am having a bit of problem setting up a Mach system to support
sendmail.  The only sendmail.cf file I have is for the Sun, ( the one
under /usr/lib on my Mach systems is 0 bytes ) and  the ether mailer
specification does not want to work with Mach's sendmail. Can someone
please send me a sample sendmail.cf file that will work with Mach's
sendmail program.

Thanks, 
Peter
From: magus@drktowr.chi.il.us (Louis Giliberto)
Newsgroups: comp.os.mach
Subject: i386 version of Mach...
Date: 11 Nov 92 09:51:43 GMT
Organization: DarkTower Software
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]


I'm about to try and compile this sucker.

Anyone have any advice before I try?

Any hints that might save me time (and gray hairs) would be
appreciated.

-Louis
--
---------------------------------------------------------
 Louis J. Giliberto, Jr.   ! magus@drktowr.chi.il.us
   -sysadmin drktowr       ! lgilibe@orion.it.luc.edu
  Chicago, IL  USA         ! 
---------------------------------------------------------
From: czerny@golden.cps.msu.edu (Barbara Czerny Dr. Ni)
Newsgroups: comp.os.mach
Subject: Mach exception handling facility reference
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:40:23 GMT
Organization: Michigan State University, CPS Department

Does anyone have a copy of the article:

  "The Mach Exception Handling Facility"
     D.L.Black, D.B. Golub, et. al.
   In SIGPLAN Workshop on Parallel Debugging 
   pp. 45-56, New York, January 1989.  ACM

I requested it via interlibrary loan about 5 or 6 weeks
ago, and have been told it could not be found at another
library.

If anyone is willing to send me a copy of it, please let
me know.  I would appreciate it.

Also, if anyone knows of any other references I would
appreciate a list of them.

Thanks in advance,

Barb

****************************************************************
%  Barbara J. Czerny               Michigan State University   %
%  Internet: czerny@cps.msu.edu        Computer Science        %
%  usenet:   uunet!frith!czerny	     E. Lansing, Michigan      %
****************************************************************
From: mario@cs.man.ac.uk (Mario Wolczko)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: objects and closures
Date: 4 Nov 92 18:58:59 GMT
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.

In article <BEVAN.92Nov3182229@hippo.cs.man.ac.uk>, bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan) writes:
> You could always use a language which has closure(goto) and lets you
> the _user_ add the syntax necessary to represent object(while) when
> and if they want it. 

Sounds nice -- but can it be done efficiently (both in space and speed
of method dispatch)?  Anyone know of any successful examples?

Mario

   ______      Dept. of Computer Science   Internet:      mario@cs.man.ac.uk
 /~      ~\    The University              uucp:    mcsun!uknet!man.cs!mario
(    __    )   Manchester M13 9PL          JANET:         mario@uk.ac.man.cs
 `-':  :`-'    U.K.                        Tel: +44-61-275 6146  (FAX: 6236)
____;  ;_____________the mushroom project___________________________________
From: tmb@arolla.idiap.ch (Thomas M. Breuel)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: objects and closures
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:09:14 GMT
	<720756315@sheol.UUCP> <TMB.92Nov6185629@arolla.idiap.ch>
	<1992Nov10.115952.24035@syacus.acus.oz.au>
Reply-To: tmb@idiap.ch
Organization: IDIAP (Institut Dalle Molle d'Intelligence Artificielle
	Perceptive)
NNTP-Posting-Host: arolla.idiap.ch
In-reply-to: ian@syacus.acus.oz.au's message of Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:59:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.115952.24035@syacus.acus.oz.au> ian@syacus.acus.oz.au (Ian Joyner) writes:

   tmb@arolla.idiap.ch (Thomas M. Breuel) writes:

   >As "goto" is more expressive than a "while" loop, so are closures more
   >expressive than objects.

   Can you explain what you mean here? The way I understand it (maybe I am
   reading your statment wrong) is that you can say that "goto" is more
   powerful than a "while" loop, as a goto can transfer control to any
   label in scope. Whereas the while loop is very restrictive, as it transfers
   control to one specific place in the program.

By "expressive" I mean that I can "express more concepts with it"; I
think that's the obvious and usual meaning of the term.

"goto" not only lets me build while loops, but I also can build loop
exits and local exception handling out of it. A more powerful form of
"goto", namely "callcc", lets me build exception handling and
nondeterministic choice facilities with backtracking (incidentally
"callcc" requires closures).

"closures" are more expressive than objects because not only can I use
them to build objects, opaque, and abstract datatypes out of them, I
can also use them for building control structures ("while", "for",
"map", "reduce", "fold", etc.) and for building lazy data structures.

					Thomas.
Newsgroups: comp.object
From: ian@syacus.acus.oz.au (Ian Joyner)
Subject: Re: objects and closures
Organization: ACUS Australian Centre for Unisys Software, Sydney
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:59:52 GMT

tmb@arolla.idiap.ch (Thomas M. Breuel) writes:

>As "goto" is more expressive than a "while" loop, so are closures more
>expressive than objects.

Can you explain what you mean here? The way I understand it (maybe I am
reading your statment wrong) is that you can say that "goto" is more
powerful than a "while" loop, as a goto can transfer control to any
label in scope. Whereas the while loop is very restrictive, as it transfers
control to one specific place in the program.

However, goto is not so expressive. Just by itself, all you know is that
control is being transferred somewhere, for some reason. However with the
while you can glean a whole lot more information about what is going on.
You immediately know it is a loop, and therefore repetitive computation.
It is probably also much more expressive as to loop preconditions,
termination, etc, and all those kinds of things that help you reason
about whether a program is correct.

Now I don't know how this relates to closures and objects, as this thread
has degenerated into the unhelpful technobabble that so many threads
wind up in. Chris Reade in Elements of Functional Programming does not say
much about closures. Does anyone have a concise and accessible write up
that helps understand the issue of closures?
-- 
Ian Joyner  ACUS (Australian Centre for Unisys Software)    ian@syacus.acus.oz
"Where is the man with all the great directions?...You can't imagine it,
 how hard it is to grow, Can you imagine the order of the universe?" ABWH
Disclaimer:Opinions and comments are personal.
From: david@worg.questor.wimsey.bc.ca (David Lau)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Neural Networks and OO
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 07:32:49 GMT
Reply-To: david@worg.questor.wimsey.bc.ca
Organization: Vancouver NeXT Users Society (VeNUS)

In article <BxDE9r.59r@newsflash.concordia.ca> krus@cs.concordia.ca (Mike Krus)  
writes:
> Hi,
> 
> can anybody tell me what are good books/articles/references/anythings who
> relate Neural Networks and the Object Oriented paradigm.
> 

Please post. I'm interested in it too.


-- 
David Lau (aka Sleepy Head)
Independent Software Developer
Phone: (604)276-9860  FAX: (604)276-8606
Email: david@worg.questor.wimsey.bc.ca
Newsgroups: comp.object
From: bobatk@microsoft.com (Bob Atkinson)
Subject: Re: OOPSLA 92 summary
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:35:27 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

Dirk Husemann writes:
>>Keynote:
>>Good talk about objects and resue (another hot item this year is reuse.) from
>>Snyder at Sun. Plubbable multi-vendor parts is parts type OS...neat
>
>But nothing really new, right?


To me there is some significant new work going on at Sun and elsewhere in
this arena: plug and play parts/components being shared without source code
and with little if any apriori pairwise testing of client/component. 

What did you have mind as a precedent?

	Bob 
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.ada,comp.software-eng
From: ryer@inmet.camb.inmet.com (Mike Ryer)
Subject: Re: SA/SD Documentation of an OBD Design
Organization: Intermetrics Inc, Cambridge MA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:03:08 GMT

943 at Northrup asks:

How do you document an OOD design using SA/SD?  Here are some suggestions:

1. Once you've got it fully coded, use an automatic flowcharting tool to
generate a few hundred pounds of paper.  I'll testify that it looks like
SA/SD to me.

2. Take the SA/SD documentation from your last (not necessarily related) 
project, and attach the OOD documentation for this project as an appendix.
Put in a colored separator page.  No one will know the difference.

3. Buy an expensive CASE tool with re-engineering capability, and assign
some people (not your friends) to convert the design.  After a few years,
report to managment that you need another million dollars (or they can
settle for the OOD stuff instead).

4.  Write an introduction that says you analyzed and decomposed the design
into one component, using SA/SD, and then provide a copy of the OOD as
added-value backup information about the fine-grained detail of that component.

Hope that helps.

Mike "speaking only for myself" Ryer
From: tmb@arolla.idiap.ch (Thomas M. Breuel)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: objects and closures
Followup-To: comp.object
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:56:29
Organization: IDIAP (Institut Dalle Molle d'Intelligence Artificielle
	Perceptive)
	<720756315@sheol.UUCP>
Reply-To: tmb@idiap.ch
NNTP-Posting-Host: arolla.idiap.ch
In-reply-to: throopw@sheol.UUCP's message of 2 Nov 92 23:10:08 GMT

In article <720756315@sheol.UUCP> throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:

   I think that "objects are a poor being's closures" is true in the same
   sense that "while constructs are a poor being's conditional goto".  The
   closure(goto) is the much more powerful construct when compared to the
   object(while), but that's not the interesting relationship between the
   two.  The *interesting* relationship is that the essentially-syntactic
   sucrose making up the object(while) captures an interesting subcase of
   the closure(goto), which aids software developers in reasoning about a
   program's behavior.

In article <Bx5DFt.7z3@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:

   I think this is an excellent and thought-provoking analogy.  Objects
   are closures you can keep track of in your head.  This is why I'm not
   clear why you'd want ML-style closures and higher-orderness in an
   object oriented language; it seems contrary to the style of OO
   programming.  

As "goto" is more expressive than a "while" loop, so are closures more
expressive than objects.

However, I think this is where the analogy ends. Unlike most uses of
"goto", data abstraction with closures is a clean and clear
programming technique.

I find abstraction and software reuse in terms of closures more
convenient and useful than abstraction and software reuse in terms of
objects, and I'd much rather have closures than objects.

					Thomas.
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng
From: dlc@ddsdx2.jhuapl.edu (Dave Collard x7468)
Subject: Re: JOOP Address/Phone?
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 12:29:35 GMT

In <1992Nov5.120152.368@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu> zxnoueih@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu (...VALENCIA...) writes:

>I am looking for the address and/or telephone number of the
>Journal of Object Oriented Programming (JOOP) for subscription 
>purposes.

Journal of Object-Oriented Programming
Subscriber Services, Dept. OOP
P.O. box 3000
Denville NJ  07834-9970

--Thor
collard@capsrv.jhuapl.edu
dlc@ddsdx2.jhuapl.edu
Xref: sparky comp.object:4221 comp.lang.ada:3268 comp.software-eng:4268
From: dvorak@ast.dsd.northrop.com (dvorak joseph l.)
Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.lang.ada,comp.software-eng
Subject: SA/SD Documentation of an OBD Design
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:20:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Northrop Corp - ESD, Rolling Meadows, IL


We are completing an object based *redesign* of an existing medium
sized application (~300K LOC).

We have been using a modified Booch approach in the redesign
and have employed abstraction and encapsulation (but not
inheritance or dynamic binding since we are using Ada).
All of the people involved in the object based redesign believe
that this is a much better design than the SA/SA design that exists.

Now management has decided that we must document the object
based design using SA/SD. They want to se dataflows and possibly
structure charts. We are unsure about how to do this since
the design truly reflects the object model. In addition,
this is the first time we have faced this situation since all
of our past OBD and OOD projects were documented in an OOD
form.

We are looking for suggestions and opinions on the wisdom of
this approach. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in
advance.

Joe Dvorak
dvorak@sunfs1.dsd.northrop.com
Newsgroups: comp.object
From: chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (The Technicolour Throw-up)
Subject: Re: Basis of OOP
Organization: Computer Science,University of Canterbury,New Zealand
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 11:10:14 GMT

From article <1992Oct23.201526.25996@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>, by santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas):
> We would be interested to see where in CT, TT, AA, it is written about
> virtual methods, method overriding, side-effects and the rest.

For CT and method overriding see:

"Modelling Multiple Inheritance with Colimits", Huimin Lin and Man-chi Pong,
Formal Aspects of Computing (1990) 2, pp 301-311
--
Just my two rubber ningis worth.
Name: Michael Chisnall  (chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz)
I'm not a .signature virus and nor do I play one on tv.
From: santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: Basis of OOP
Date: 8 Nov 92 16:22:12 GMT
Organization: Dept. Informatik, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, CH


In article <Bx8pp3.Jru@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> chisnall@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz (The Technicolour Throw-up) writes:
>From article <1992Oct23.201526.25996@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>, by santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas):
>>
>> We would be interested to see where in CT, TT, AA, it is written about
>> virtual methods, method overriding, side-effects and the rest.
>
>For CT and method overriding see:
>
>"Modelling Multiple Inheritance with Colimits", Huimin Lin and Man-chi Pong,
>Formal Aspects of Computing (1990) 2, pp 301-311

Please make sure you know what the conversation is about, before
you post to the net quoting others; here you make, among others, 
the following mistakes:

(a) The conversation was about the question if OOP was influenced by CT.
Here you quote me out of context and you come with a paper from 1990, 
_decades_ after the first OOLs appeared. Come up with a relevant paper 
from the 60s and then we discuss it. 

(b) In OOP method overriding makes sense in the case of mutable objects.
Otherwise it is a trivial technic, which exists even in FP (for instance:
functions defined for more special arguments), and is well documented.
The problems arise with side effects, and I would be glad/thankful if you 
show me a paper which documents and justifies this case.

(c) Method overriding does not pose _just_ problems of correctnes, but
of program execution issues as well. These problems are well known
to the field of symbolic algebra, since proper running of algorithms
is a great issue. Unfortunately CT or algebra in general does not help 
much here (even _if_ it had solved (b)).

As you see the problem is quite complicated: OOP exists _before_
its documentation, while on the other hand FP is based on certain
well known and elaborated mathematical models. Or think about this: 
how many students learn about CT before they learn OOP? (comparison with 
\lambda calculus and FP). This does not imply that the one is inferior to 
the other, it is mentioned just to show that OOP is not based on _any_
mathematical model. 

>Just my two rubber ningis worth.

For what?

Philip Santas

  "In an evolving universe those who stand still are really moving backwards"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
email: santas@inf.ethz.ch				 Philip Santas
Mail: Dept. Informatik				Department of Computer Science
      ETH-Zentrum			  Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
      CH-8092 Zurich				       Zurich, Switzerland
      Switzerland
Phone: +41-1-2547391
      
Newsgroups: comp.object
From: curzon@trooa.enet.dec.com (Richard Curzon)
Subject: Re: Constraint Management / Consistency Checking
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:51:41 GMT


In article <2930569391.0.p00058@psilink.com>, "Ronald C. Schultz" <p00058@psilink.com> writes...
>Does anyone have any references as to how to implement constraints or 
>consistency checking within object-oriented systems?  I am interested in 

See Bertrand Meyer's article in October COMPUTER magazine, he talks about
(of course) how Eiffel handles this kind of constraint checking in terms
usable outside the Eiffel environment.  Don't have the article here 
unfortunately...

                                Richard Curzon, Digital Equipment of Canada
				Toronto
   (from INTERNET)     curzon@trooa.ENET.dec.com 
   (from COMPUSERVE)   71371,2521  OR  >INTERNET:curzon@trooa.ENET.dec.com

Newsgroups: comp.object
From: gnray@world.std.com (Garry N Ray)
Subject: Re: OO COBOL
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 22:30:20 GMT

bj gleason <BJGLEAS@auvm.american.edu> writes:

>Has there been any extensions to COBOL to allow for Objects?  I thought
>that I had heard something about this...

Micro Focus has been distributing an experimental version of the ANSI
extensions, which won't actually be formalized until April. I believe MF
is in Palo Alto or Mountain View. Somewhere in that area.

Newsgroups: comp.object
From: haim@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (kilov,haim)
Subject: Re: Constraint Management / Consistency Checking
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 15:47:37 GMT

In response to Ron Schultz's question:
that has a stated rule that for a
particular checking account, that is only a credit card account for the same
customer can be used to  provide overdraft protection for the checking
account.  I am looking for a means to centrally locate these "rules" or
constraints so that if the rule changes, I can change it in one location
--

These rules (constraints) are the preconditions for the corresponding
operations. Certainly, the same operation may be reused more than once,
but it has to be specified (i.e., its pre- and postconditions should be
stated) only once. The particular operation here is "attempt overdraft
protection". This stuff can be formulated, e.g., in Z (see Pamela Zave and
Michael Jackson. Techniques for partial specifiction and specification of
switching systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer Verlag,
Vol. 551 (1991), pp. 511-525).

Hope this helps.

-Haim Kilov
haim@bcr.cc.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: comp.object
From: chrysler@psych.umn.edu (Susan Chrysler)
Subject: Is there a PowerBuilder newsgroup?
Organization: University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 18:39:26 GMT

I'm looking for information concerning PowerBuilder running in an IBM Windows  
environment.  In particular I'm interested in creating re-usable objects from a  
CD-ROM.  Are there any users or newsgroups concerned with PowerBuilder?

Thanks in advance,
Sue Chrysler
Department of Psychology
University of Minnesota

Please e-mail replies

Chrysler@text2.psych.umn.edu
From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
Newsgroups: comp.object
Subject: Re: objects and closures
Date: 4 Nov 92 19:29:47 GMT
	<BEVAN.92Nov3182229@hippo.cs.man.ac.uk> <1992Nov4.185859@cs.man.ac.uk>
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
In-reply-to: mario@cs.man.ac.uk's message of 4 Nov 92 18:58:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.185859@cs.man.ac.uk> mario@cs.man.ac.uk (Mario Wolczko) writes:
   In article <BEVAN.92Nov3182229@hippo.cs.man.ac.uk>, I write :-
   > You could always use a language which has closure(goto) and lets you
   > the _user_ add the syntax necessary to represent object(while) when
   > and if they want it. 

   Sounds nice -- but can it be done efficiently (both in space and speed
   of method dispatch)?  Anyone know of any successful examples?

How about the MEROON package which is available for certain Scheme
systems (it doesn't use the new macro system :-(  It is a sort of
mini-CLOS system and if I remember correctly, the documentation states
that the amortized time for a "method" call is 2.5 normal function
calls.  Whether this is "quick enough" I can't say, you'd have to try
it and see.  You can find MEROON in the Scheme Repository :- 

  pub/scheme/...:anonymous@nexus.yorku.ca

bevan
Newsgroups: comp.object