Sender:	vheyndri AT rug DOT ac DOT be
Message-Id:	<35052E72.51D0@rug.ac.be>
Date:	Tue, 10 Mar 1998 13:13:38 +0100
From:	Vik Heyndrickx <Vik DOT Heyndrickx AT rug DOT ac DOT be>
Mime-Version:	1.0
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: errno constants in <errno.h>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 980310133453 DOT 4314H-100000 AT is>

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Vik Heyndrickx wrote:
> 
> > This is much more than where I originally suggested it for.
> You should have thought about this before suggesting ;-).

Aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrgggghh.

> > This also is an encouragement to the user to use the DOS functions
> > instead of the standard functions. That's no good.

For the record, I'm referring to the _dos_* functions like declared in
<dos.h>

> I don't see how does it encourage this.  Can you explain?

If you have only one set of function you will use that, of course.
If you have two sets of functions the user will tend to like the one
with the most consistent interface more (especially the non-newbies),
since it makes it easier to write user-friendly interfaces ("While
trying to open file X, the access was denied" and not "While trying to
open file X, something went wrong") because our sys->app interface
doesn't allow much more than in the second example.
The standard functions have everything someone needs (well, almost).

> > The reason why I asked this, is because we therefore always can store
> > the DOS error code, and errno could be a call to a error-code
> > translation function.
> > But if this is going to break code? I don't know.
> Yes, it will.

Oops, sorry, my English... I meant:

"But when this is going to break code? I don't know."

-- 
 \ Vik /-_-_-_-_-_-_/   
  \___/ Heyndrickx /          
   \ /-_-_-_-_-_-_/

- Raw text -