Re: [AD] Low-level file hooks - implemented and tested

[Peter Wang <tjaden@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 2002-07-25, Santa Claus <thisismeiassureyou@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >I don't know about anyone else, but I was thinking about Allegro 4.2.
> >
> >But it doesn't mean your patch is rejected already: it depends whether
> >the other idea gets implemented, or even if it *can* get implemented
> >whilst maintaining compatibility with the current interface.
> 
> OK. As long as you don't _wait_ for someone to implement it, because we all 
> know what'll happen ;)

1. Nobody implements it
2. Somebody implements it
    i. Not-me implements it
   ii. I implement it

;-)

> >(brain kicks in) Wait, since those constants only get used in file.c,
> >I'm just going to move the dummies straight in there.
> 
> See Vincent Penquerc'h's post. MSVC's header already had S_IWUSR and 
> S_IRUSR defined as S_IREAD and S_IWRITE (damn, Microsoft are dumb...)

Looks like it's some dumb BSD thing, actually.

> so why not do the same for the other S_I* flags?

I wanted to move S_I?USR from almsvc.h into file.c as well, but maybe
someone is depending on it.

> And make the other flags work on MinGW? 

MinGW and MSVC are not the only compilers on Windows, and Windows is not
the only OS where S_I?GRP/S_I?OTH don't make sense.  It's easier to
stick it in one place instead of every al<compiler>.h.

> Someone may want to use those flags on Unix, and it would be 
> convenient if Allegro defined them on other platforms :)

Well, why don't we pull in the rest of the flags to `open' as well?
</sarcasm>

> Peter: either something's wrong with your e-mail signature, or you have an 
> inherent hatred for other character sets than your own ;D

It's just another way I can annoy the world.

-- 
王浩禎