OSLib / wimp.h / wimp_ERROR_BOX_CATEGORY

[Tony van der Hoff]

On Sat, 3 Jun 2000, at 11:45:15, Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu> wrote on
the subject "OSLib / wimp.h / wimp_ERROR_BOX_CATEGORY":

>In message <QCttIGAADQN5EwXv at mk-net.demon.co.uk>
>          Tony van der Hoff <OSLib at mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 May 2000, at 10:34:35, Dave Appleby
>> <DaveAppleby at btinternet.com> wrote on the subject "OSLib / wimp.h /
>> wimp_ERROR_BOX_CATEGORY":
>>
>> >OSLib 6.01 / wimp.h / wimp_ERROR_BOX_CATEGORY
>> >
>> >I think that using the shift value for the new categories
>> >makes things unnescessarily complex. Surely the programmer
>> >doesn't need to know how the flags are arrived at...
>>
>> The basic idea doesn't seem unreasonable to me. However, this is Tom's
>> work, and I'm unsure of the original logic behind doing it this way,
>> he'll probably have his own comments.
>
>My definitions were merely following Jonathan's example set in
>other parts of OSLib for how to deal with the case where a bit
>mask includes a set of bits used to hold a small ordinal value.
>
Well, in that case, while I have some sympathy for the original
suggestion, I'd be disinclined to follow it up right now, on the basis
that to be consistent, we'd have to make similar amendments throughout
the library. The present system has been considered adequate for years,
AFAIK.

I guess it's easy enough for individual users to set up their own macros
based on those defined by the library.

The lack of comment suggests that the general consensus of oslib-user
isn't strongly either way?

-- 
Tony van der Hoff         |  Mailto:tony at mk-net.demon.co.uk
                          |  Mailto:avanderhoff at iee.org
Buckinghamshire, England  |  http:www.mk-net.demon.co.uk