Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 14:28:07 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: wojciech DOT galazka AT polkomtel DOT com DOT pl
Message-Id: <8361-Fri17Aug2001142807+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <250B3114DA16D511B82C00E0094005F8023FC089@MSGWAW11> (message from
	=?iso-8859-2?Q?Wojciech_Ga=B3=B1zka?= on Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:11:25
	+0200)
Subject: Re: Better _open.c, test program
References:  <250B3114DA16D511B82C00E0094005F8023FC089 AT MSGWAW11>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> From: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Wojciech_Ga=B3=B1zka?= <wojciech DOT galazka AT polkomtel DOT com DOT pl>
> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 12:11:25 +0200
> > 
> the old long filename is said by some Microsoft docs to be remembered by the
> operating system for a 30 seconds or so even if the file is deleted so that
> if you create it later (within these 30 seconds) using the file's short
> filename then its longfilename reappers too.

We don't create the file, we just open it using its short name.

> There may be problems with filename case however, (ie old name foo.c, new
> name FOO.C)

This is worth testing.

> > I also tested the new _open code on Windows NT 4.0 with the LFN TSR and
> > all seems OK.
> > 
> Where could I find the 'last' version of open.c ?

The diffs were posted here.