Testing the waters. (fwd)

[BRIAN SPILSBURY]

> >I think it is not so much "and", but "or".  Either we strive to make
> >the POS as transparent as possible, or it is up to the application.
> >If there is significant labor on the part of the application, a
> >programmer might as well use pathnames and do object archiving by
> >hand.
> >
> >The result of a transparent POS in LispOS should be that programs
> >written for LispOS have very minimal responsibilities
> >w.r.t. persistence.  
> 
> That is correct. That's why POS programs won't work in a conventional
> environment. POS programs don't do anything to access the
> disk. Conventional programs go through all sorts of contortions.

You can simulate a normal file-system with a transparent POS, you
can always simulate a non-transparent POS with a transparent POS.

Personally I'd vote for a transparent POS, transparent to the point
where the disk _is_ memory, and we're just using ram for cache,
then it should be relatively easy to add in persistence of execution.

Brian