Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2003/02/25/20:41:01
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:40:50 +0000
> > From: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
> > FWIW Linux allows writes to the file, after fchmod'ing to be read-only.
> > The test program at the end of this mail works fine on Linux. The file
> > is read-only afterwards.
> Then there's no problem, I think. Thanks for looking into this.
You're welcome. It's nice to see DOS works like Linux sometimes (or
> > I thought about returning ENOSYS instead of ENOENT. I think you suggested
> > this before. But this would be misleading, I think. I take ENOSYS to mean
> > that the system call is not implemented at all, whereas we've partially
> > implemented it. So I think ENOENT is right.
> ENOSYS means the feature is not supported, so I think it's okay. I
> won't mind to use ENOENT, but please consider what will a user think
> when presented with "No such file or directory" in response to a
> function that didn't accept any file name.
I agree ENOSYS makes more sense from a user's perspective. I'll change the
I also wonder how many people will actually check fchmod's return code...
> > But how do we detect that standard handles are piped?
> Call isatty on the handle; if it returns zero, the handle is
But can we assume file descriptors 0, 1, etc. are actually standard handles?
What happens if the program closes them and then opens some other file? I
don't think we can reliably tell whether it's a standard handle. So we can't
return the pipe-specific error.
Thanks, bye, Rich =]
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]
- Raw text -