Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!banana.cis.ohio-state.edu!macgyver From: macgyver@banana.cis.ohio-state.edu (wilson m liaw) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer Subject: Re: Think C Request Message-ID: <73305@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Date: 27 Oct 89 04:55:10 GMT References: <541@sunfs3.camex.uucp> <69099@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <545@sunfs3.camex.uucp> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Reply-To: wilson m liaw Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science Lines: 26 In article <545@sunfs3.camex.uucp> kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg) writes: [stuffed] >I almost bought your answer, but I think not. > >Think C shouldn't assume so much, it should look at the error. >Couldn't it notice the difference between "fnfErr -43 /*File not >found*/" and "opWrErr -49 /*file already open with with write >permission*/"? > >If the file is not found, forget it, but if I already have it open in >ResEdit, please make some noise. I guessed that Think C assumed so much from Think C's behavior. I don't really know how this is done in the source level, as I am in no mood to disassembly Think C. (Though it would be educational.) I do agree that Think C shouldn't assume so much if my guess is right.. Mac -=- Wilson "Mac" Liaw Internet : macgyver@cis.ohio-state.edu CompuServe : 71310,1653 GEnie : W.Liaw =============================================================================== When the going gets tough, the tough quits. :)