Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!midway!mimsy!mojo!russotto
From: russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: MultiFinder Programmer's Guide question 3
Message-ID: <1991Jan11.023238.10366@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 11 Jan 91 02:32:38 GMT
References: <3723@uakari.primate.wisc.edu>
Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (C-News)
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Lines: 20

In article <3723@uakari.primate.wisc.edu> bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) writes:
>Programmer's Guide to MultiFinder p 3-14 discusses how to tell
>whether WaitNextEvent() is implemented.  There is one of those
>4-diamond Note things that says: "WaitNextEvent does not conflict
>with any OS trap, so the above test is valid on 64K ROMs."
>
>However, the code in question contains the comment "WaitNextEvent
>and HFSDispatch both have the same trap number ($60)..."
>
>This seems to be a discrepancy.  What am I missing?


The Programmers guide makes an unwarranted assumption:  That someone using
the 64K ROMs is not using HFS.  The problem is that there is a file called
Hard Disk 20 which implements HFS under the 64K ROMs.  The code is right
and the note is wrong.

--
Matthew T. Russotto	russotto@eng.umd.edu	russotto@wam.umd.edu
     .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.