8 bit os_f handles

[John Tytgat]

In message <200003312059.MAA16597 at purple.trimedia.sv.sc.philips.com>
          "Jonathan Coxhead" <jonathan at doves.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>    Quite the reverse. If we introduce |os_w| soon, anyone who wishes 
> to may upgrade to it (note---their code will be written, and can be 
> tested, long before any actual 32-bit FileSwitch is seen). So no bugs 
> will be seen.
> 
>    If we changed to a 32-bit |os_f|, the same would apply, except 
> that (a) people would be *forced* to upgrade when they next compiled, 
> and (b) horrible bugs could be introduced into their code as a 
> consequence.

Again, nobody is *forced* to use a new version of OSLib.  Programmer/user
of OSLib is free to go for a new version if he wants so.  Where is the
pressure ? We're not in the M$ world after all where everybody is being
pushed to go for the latest version !?!

Again, what's the problem specifying that the next version of OSLib has
os_f defined as 32 bit as consequence of a *bug* fix in OSLib and adding
an appropriate warning that the source needs to be checked that it doesn't
fall over the fact the os_f is now 32 bit (which needs to happen anyway
when he wants to change os_f to os_w) ?

John.
-- 
John Tytgat, in his comfy chair at home              Windows NT crashed
John.Tytgat at aaug.net                           I am the Blue Screen of Death
BASS                                             No one hears your screams.