Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!shelby!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!bartz From: bartz@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Edward Bartz) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Aztec C 5.0d w/ 2.0 includes. Char vs. UBYTE Message-ID: Date: 25 Feb 91 14:37:06 GMT References: <19176@cbmvax.commodore.com> <2169@fornax.UUCP> <1991Feb22.175826.26009@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> <19252@cbmvax.commodore.com> Distribution: na Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 28 [peter@cbmvax.commodore.com writes] >nothing but trouble. I don't think there's much in a FileLock structure >you should read, anyways. > Peter Try writing a file system without getting inside FileLocks. :-} The answer to my FileLock question seems to be two parts. One, the autodocs were written in a confusing way. Which still seems to the case, since my copy of the 2.0 includes does the same thing, noting that it is a BCPL pointer only at the end. Second, many people were caught by this, but it didn't always matter. If you acquire a lock, and do nothing but pass it on to other routines (written correctly), it doesn't matter what you call it, the program is confusing, but functional. When I first start playing with this stuff, I made the mistake, but took it a step further. I filed in filelocks as c pointers. The strange thing was, it seemed to work. The program didn't crash, and seemed to work (since I wasn't sure at that time how things should work, any wierd responses I got seemed only to because the code wasn't yet complete). Now that I have this bit of confusion filled in, I know how to handle other peoples code. Ed Bartz -- UUCP: bartz@elbereth.uucp BITNET: bartz@rutphy.bitnet USSnail: 12 Roosevelt St. South River, NJ 08882