Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ubvax!ardent!rap
From: rap@ardent.UUCP (Rob Peck)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Unsupported Programming Practices
Summary: (long memory strikes again)...
Message-ID: <1425@ardent.UUCP>
Date: 9 Jan 89 19:02:43 GMT
References: <579@boing.UUCP> <2966@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <586@boing.UUCP>
Organization: Dana Computer, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 34

In article <586@boing.UUCP>, dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck) writes:
> In article <2966@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes:
> >From article <579@boing.UUCP>, by dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck):
> >" You need to use WaitBlit().
> >
> >Judging from code in the 1.0 rom, you may need to use it twice.
> >		Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
> 
> Pardon me? There is no such thing as a 1.0 rom.
> 
> It seems entirely silly to me to make programmers use WaitBlit twice
> when WaitBlit already does the proper thing now.

Dale - I think Greg was referring to the code samples in the 1.0
"RKM"... they are somewhat different from what we released finally
for 1.1 and following... in the 1.0 world, when I asked for a code
example for that, I was told (and documented it as such), that you
WOULD have to call WaitBlit() twice before you could be absolutely
sure the blitter had indeed finished (and folks, that WAS 1.0 and
evidently HAS since been fixed.).  Strangely enough, there ARE
still a few copies of the 1.0 RKM (I have one, of course) still
floating around and also strangely enough, some folks still refer
back to them for information (particularly about EXEC since there
were two different authors with entirely different ways of explaining
EXEC between the two editions -- and some internal details never quite
made the transition as I recall, to the new edition).

So anyway, a book-a-holic has obviously remembered (and found) the
reference to that original "requirement" which (thank goodness) no
longer exists.  

(An avowed book-a-holic myself...Wink-wink-nudge-nudge-know-what-ah-mean  :-).

Rob Peck