4 ms·
If you depend heavily on Mach ports I don't think "kqueue (macOS)" is an accurate description. That makes it sound like it has more of a chance to work on BSD t
by asveikau 3y ago
If you depend heavily on Mach ports I don't think "kqueue (macOS)" is an accurate description. That makes it sound like it has more of a chance to work on BSD than it does.
- mitchellh 3y agoIt is an accurate description. The mach ports are waited on through kqueue, and I use kqueue for all other waiters with "standard" fds (i.e. files). But my usage of mach ports (even for a partial use case) make it incompatible with BSD, and even if I didn't use mach ports the kqueue structures used by macOS are slightly different and incompatible anyways, and I don't claim BSD support anywhere. It's splitting hairs and being a bit pedantic, but you also reordered my descriptions: in the README I always say "macOS (kqueue)" and not the reverse which you incorrectly quoted. I think that makes a small but tangible difference.
- asveikau 3y agoI did misread and misquote that. But when a remark is parenthetical I guess I consider them equivalent. macOS and kqueue is not equivalent. Maybe macOS (using kqueue and Mach ports) would make it clearer?
- cornstalks 3y agoNo one but you is saying macOS and kqueue are equivalent. OP’s phrasing is perfectly fine.