Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!shlump.nac.dec.com!shodha.dec.com!elvira!ridder
From: ridder@elvira.enet.dec.com (Hans Ridder)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: Mutual Exclude Gadgets
Summary: ** A Plea for Peace **
Message-ID: <557@shodha.dec.com>
Date: 30 Dec 89 02:51:46 GMT
References: <861@mindlink.UUCP>
Sender: news@shodha.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Customer Support Center
Lines: 29

I'm not interested in adding fuel to the debate over what is and what
is not proper for developers and Commodore to do with various
defined/undefined used/unused fields in varous structures, but I think
it's possible for Commodore end the discussion about MutualExclude
rather simply.

I think it's clear to anyone writing programs using Intuition that
mutual exclusion is a Good Thing (or a Necessary Thing even.)  So we
know we need it, the great debate seems to be, how are we going to get
it.  I think I have a suggestion which might work.

If Commodore were to say that it's OK for developers to use the
MutualExclude field for mutual exclusion (within defined guidelines),
then we could use it now.  When Commodore decides to implment it in
Intuition, it wouldn't hurt a thing.

In other words, I think it's possible for both Intuition *and* your
program to do mutual exclusion using the MutualExclude field as long
as we (developers and Commodore) agree on how to use it.  All we need
is some guidance from Commodore on *how* to properly use it.

So, is it workable?  Am I totally wedged?  Just trying to chill out
the discussion a bit....

-hans
========================================================================
  Hans-Gabriel Ridder			Digital Equipment Corporation
  ridder@elvira.enet.dec.com		Customer Support Center
  ...decwrl!elvira.enet!ridder		Colorado Springs, CO