Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!apple!portal!atari!apratt From: apratt@atari.UUCP (Allan Pratt) Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st.tech Subject: Re: More on Laser 2.1 vs MiNT Message-ID: <2706@atari.UUCP> Date: 15 Oct 90 20:25:15 GMT References: Distribution: comp.sys.atari.st.tech Organization: Atari Corp., Sunnyvale CA Lines: 32 >From: Sam_Streeper@NeXT.COM >It tests >something undocumented to determine which it is starting. [...] >I don't consider this a Laser bug, I do, at least in part. >because all versions of TOS set this up correctly, All EXISTING versions might, but it's not documented or guaranteed. >and lots of people use this trick to get their gem applications to work >as both programs and DA's. If lots of people jumped off a bridge, would that make it the bridge's fault? I'm being facetious, of course, but just because "lots of people" do something doesn't make it documented. This is called a "settled expectation," and we *do* consider them whe we make TOS changes, but it doesn't mean they're guaranteed: it's still the program's fault (in this case, Laser's startup code). Of course, it wouldn't be hard to make MiNT start up programs with whatever key difference Laser C expects, but the fact remains that the programs are relying on something which is not guaranteed. That means they are "version dependent," and if they work under a different "version" of TOS, fine, but if they don't, blame the program, not the OS. ============================================ Opinions expressed above do not necessarily -- Allan Pratt, Atari Corp. reflect those of Atari Corp. or anyone else. ...ames!atari!apratt