Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!husc6!endor!siegel
From: siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: THINK C bug??
Keywords: THINKC
Message-ID: <2525@husc6.harvard.edu>
Date: 29 Aug 89 02:37:17 GMT
References: <2741@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>
Sender: news@husc6.harvard.edu
Reply-To: siegel@endor.UUCP (Rich Siegel)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Symantec Language Products Group
Lines: 42

In article <2741@cbnewsc.ATT.COM> fjo@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (frank.j.owen) writes:
>
>   I just ran across something strange while using THINK C (4.0).
>I have two copies of a project folder so that I can make changes to 
>one, and retain a copy of my old stuff. Recently, I wanted to view 
>an old version of one of the files, along with the new version. When
>I tried to "Open" the old version, nothing happened. The only way I 
>could look at either version was to explicitly close one, and then 
>open the other. It looks like if you have two files with the same
>name, only one can be open at a time. Switching between versions (for 
>cut&paste for example) is a tedious sequence of open-cut-close-open-find 
>your place again-paste etc, etc. etc.
>  Is this a bug? If not, it's a very annoying "feature"!

	It's neither. I'm willing to bet cash that the two files in question
are in different subdirectories of the directory tree rooted at one of
your project documents, or that both project documents are in subdirectories
of the tree rooted at THINK C itself.

	Either way, this behavior is a side effect of THINK C's tree scheme;
because both files come from the same tree, THINK C thinks that the file
you're trying to open is already open.

	For this reason, it's wise not to put your works in progress in the
tree rooted at THINK C, a fact which is documented. I think.

R.




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Rich Siegel
 Staff Software Developer
 Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group
 Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu
 UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel

"There is no personal problem which cannot be solved by sufficient
application of high explosives."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~