pdl@root44.UUCP (06/12/83)
Surely, with the use of a little etymology, we can discover what `re-entrant' really means ?? My bet is that (surprise, surprise), it means able to be re-entered. Thus one CAN talk about re-entrant interrupt code, as well as re-entrant programs. Obviously, the meaning is slightly different in the two cases (whole programs and bits of them), but it seems fairly clear, to me at least, what it means. Dave Lukes (...!vax135!ukc!root44!pdl)
donchin@uiucdcs.UUCP (06/16/83)
#R:root44:-317300:uiucdcs:24700025:000:214 uiucdcs!donchin Jun 15 23:57:00 1983 Etymology is not the answer to everything. For example, an etymological analysis of terrific should make it closely akin to terrible. Things develop technical meanings that seperate them far from their origins.
larson@sri-unix.UUCP (07/08/83)
#R:USC-ISIB:-181600:sri-unix:13500002:000:360 sri-unix!larson Jun 8 11:38:00 1983 How about recursion. It is not necessary to have the entire program be reentrant to want the generation of reentrant code. This, I would suspect, is a more common use for reentrancy than things that require multi-tasking (at least on personal machines). (I know there are other ways to be recursive, but reentrancy does make it all a lot easier.) Alan