8 bit os_f handles

[David J. Ruck]

On Tue 28 Mar, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2000, at 00:22:00, David J. Ruck <druck at freeuk.com> wrote
> on the subject "8 bit os_f handles":
> >Then the users makefile is broken and they no doubt will experience many
> >other problems. The point is you should be supplying correct code, not
> >working around other peoples potential problems.

> Oh come on, David. Leave it alone. The code *is not* incorrect. Not
> everyone sees things quite in your black and white way.

Show me one single piece of Acorn or RISC OS documentation that says
you are safe to assume file handles are 8 bits and I'll let it drop.
 
> There will be programs out there which rely on OS_F being 8 bit.
> Structures containing OS_F, Arrays of OS_F for instance.

If they are arrays of od_F there is no problem - its called type safety.
If howver they have arrays of byte and cast to os_f then there is a
problem.

> Now you will argue that it is the responsibility of the individual authors
> to ensure that adequate storage exists for such objects, but Jonathan and I
> live in the real world. 

The incompatibility comes when you save these objects as to disc as part of a
structure - file handles being a transient resource are not valid to be
stored on

> We have no desire to create unnecessary problems for these people.

No now, but you are guarenteeing much more serious problems in the future.
 
> There is a perfectly acceptable alternative implementation on the stocks
> which will also make it correct should there ever be 32-bit file
> handles. What more do you want? 

Wont fix existing code.
 
> Don't just argue for the sake of it. OS_F will not change while I have
> anything to do with the distribution.

This is a VERY important issue, or I wouldn't be wasting time on it.

> This is getting to look a bit arrogant and self-opinionated. OSLib is
> good (well *you* use it, don't you?) and consistent. One of the reasons
> for this is that Jonathan initially, and the maintainer team
> subsequently made decisions to *never* break anything that was working.
> That philosophy stays, whatever your opinion on the matter.

You are going to find "was working" is going to be the key phrase.
No one is going to thank you for perpetuating this problem.

---Dave

-- 
______________________________________________________________________

  David J. Ruck     Phone: 07974 108301     Email: druck at freeuk.com
______________________________________________________________________