Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 5/3/83; site ukc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!ukc!rde From: rde@ukc.UUCP (R.D.Eager) Newsgroups: net.arch Subject: Re: RE: Why Not Virtual Files? Message-ID: <4259@ukc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 20-Jun-84 11:41:31 EDT Article-I.D.: ukc.4259 Posted: Wed Jun 20 11:41:31 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 14-Jun-84 00:56:15 EDT References: <2572@ncsu.UUCP> Organization: Computing Lab. Kent University, England Lines: 20 I have used a mainframe system (not MULTICS) which uses virtual files exclusively for about 5 years. The answer is that getchar/putchar are still there; they simply treat the file as one large buffer. Normally, the C library (or whatever) still has a pointer, but it only relates to the current buffer load. Thus there is no difference as the old-timers see it. Having got that out of the way, let me say that for *some* applications virtual files are pretty neat. Trouble is, most languages don't have any facility to get at them! We have a FORTRAN system (OK, OK, let's assume it's all been said) which allows you to map COMMON onto a file. Great for large amounts of data which are updated in itty bitty bits. I could mention other benefits, but I think my main point was really that conventional I/O is still possible and no less efficient; the language library actually has less to do. Bob Eager University of Kent UK (...ukc!rde)