Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!sun-barr!apple!well!shf
From: shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: File Requesters
Keywords: REENTRANT FILE REQUESTERS
Message-ID: <11584@well.UUCP>
Date: 9 May 89 08:01:28 GMT
References: <6342@ardent.UUCP> <103440@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> <3795@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Reply-To: shf@well.UUCP (Stuart H. Ferguson)
Distribution: na
Organization: The Blue Planet
Lines: 20

+-- peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
| In article <>, cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) writes:
| > This is a very simple operation. And to be effective should stay simple. 
| > 	FileLock = Request("Prompt", DirLock, Access_mode);
| 
| Too complex. What if I want a file name? What if I want to open it later?
| How about handling overwritten/nonexistent files?
 [...]
| 	Status = Request(Title, Pattern, DirectoryLock, Buffer);

What if I want a LIST of files?  Like, open a requester and let the user
select a whole bunch then say OK and crunch on them in sequence.

Is a filename equivalent to a lock?  A lock would have the advantage that
the file won't go away while you're waiting to process it, but a name
would have the advantage that you could handle the exceptions yourself.
What's the tradeoff here?
-- 
		Stuart Ferguson		(shf@well.UUCP)
		Action by HAVOC