Font_ApplyFields problem

[Jonathan Coxhead]

   We've been round this loop before, and no new points are being made.

   On 2 Nov 2001, at 1:50, David J. Ruck wrote:

> On 1 Nov 2001 "Jonathan Coxhead" <jonathan at doves.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >    But that could never be the only version, because to support the older 
> > versions of the OS, which have 8-bit file handles, we'd still need to 
> > distribute the os_f functions.
> 
> Why? Using 32bits for file handles works on all RISC OS machines.

   But there are applications which use byte-sized variables for file handles, 
and they'd break when relinked under your scheme.

> There is no such thing as 8bit file handles, as far as the user is concerned all
> the file API's return a 32bit opaque values, always have and always will.

   No---OSLib uses byte-sized quantities for them. As you know very well! This 
feature, though arguably a mistake, is a completely visible part of the exposed 
API.

> Howver with your knowledge from working at Acorn you knew the OS currently
> only used an 8 bit range, but this is not a formal specification, and no
> library definitiom should have assumed this.

   I may agree; but, that's how it was done.

> This is not a personal
> criticism, its all water under the bridge now, but the sooner the possibility of
> this problem being perpetuated in new code is removed, the better.

   That's a documentation problem. The solution to it does not consist of 
breaking people's perfectly good code.

> Many people here now are using OSLib for cross platform development and
> require the use of full 32bit file handles. This is what brought the issue to my
> attention, because the pervious version of OS Lib were violating the API
> requirements. It has cost a considerable amount of to rectify the legacy of the
> 8bit file handles, which is ongoing as people are still using the old OS_Lib
> functions in new code, due to lack of awareness.

   Right. This is why we have the -W variants. I'm surprised you care even 
slightly about the 8-bit variants---as long as you don't use them, they do you 
no harm. Your argument seems to be "I don't use them, and no-one else should be 
allowed to either."

   Anyway, all this has been hashed through at great length already. I see no 
reason to change any of our previous conclusions.

        /|
 o o o (_|/
        /|
       (_/