Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!usc!news
From: news@usc.edu (USENET News)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Mutual Exclude Gadgets
Keywords: Gadgets
Message-ID: <22034@usc.edu>
Date: 30 Dec 89 05:29:25 GMT
References: <951@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>
Organization: Felsina Software, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 24

>I don't see the word 'reserved' anywhere in the definition of MutualExclude.
>Perhaps we are talking about two different things here. I see 'reserved' as
>being "This field should be set to NULL, and not used for anything at all,
>because we have put it here for future use, said use being undetermined at this
>time'. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this.
From: papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa)
Path: pollux.usc.edu!papa

Only one comment, and then I'm on to another subject.  The following is
quoted verbatim from an article in Amigamail (which all developers get as
part of the developer's fee), by Peter Cherna of Commodore:

"Even in the latest release of the system, V1.3, mutual exclusion of gadgets 
has not been implemented. In fact, if Commodore-Amiga ever does provide
system support for the mutual exclusion of gadgets, the method used may well
be different from the method outlined in the Intuition Reference Manual". 

So, you've been warned. If you read that as "I can use MutualExclude for
my own purposes", be my guest.  I can bet, your program will likely break.

-- Marco Papa 'Doc'
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Xerox sues somebody for copying?" -- David Letterman
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=