bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) (01/11/91)
Programmer's Guide to MultiFinder p 3-14 discusses how to tell whether WaitNextEvent() is implemented. There is one of those 4-diamond Note things that says: "WaitNextEvent does not conflict with any OS trap, so the above test is valid on 64K ROMs." However, the code in question contains the comment "WaitNextEvent and HFSDispatch both have the same trap number ($60)..." This seems to be a discrepancy. What am I missing? -- Paul DuBois dubois@primate.wisc.edu
mystone@mondo.engin.umich.edu (Dean Yu) (01/11/91)
In article <3723@uakari.primate.wisc.edu> bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) writes: >Programmer's Guide to MultiFinder p 3-14 discusses how to tell >whether WaitNextEvent() is implemented. There is one of those >4-diamond Note things that says: "WaitNextEvent does not conflict >with any OS trap, so the above test is valid on 64K ROMs." > >However, the code in question contains the comment "WaitNextEvent >and HFSDispatch both have the same trap number ($60)..." > No problem here. _WaitNextEvent is a toolbox trap and _HFSDispatch is an OS trap. The 64K ROMs didn't have HFS implemented in them, so there's no conflict. _______________________________________________________________________________ Dean Yu | E-mail: mystone@mondo.engin.umich.edu Patches 'R' Us | Real-mail: Dean Yu A Division of Cyberite Systems | 909 Church St Apt C | Ann Arbor, MI 48104 I'm not the voice of Reason, much | Phone: 313 662-4073 less the voice of Cyberite. | 313 662-4163 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) (01/11/91)
From article <1991Jan10.203702.12535@engin.umich.edu>, by mystone@mondo.engin.umich.edu (Dean Yu): > No problem here. _WaitNextEvent is a toolbox trap and _HFSDispatch is an > OS trap. The 64K ROMs didn't have HFS implemented in them, so there's no > conflict. Oh...yeah. Sheesh, am I dumb sometimes. (All the time?) Thanks. -- Paul DuBois dubois@primate.wisc.edu
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (01/11/91)
In article <3723@uakari.primate.wisc.edu> bin@primate.wisc.edu (Brain in Neutral) writes: >Programmer's Guide to MultiFinder p 3-14 discusses how to tell >whether WaitNextEvent() is implemented. There is one of those >4-diamond Note things that says: "WaitNextEvent does not conflict >with any OS trap, so the above test is valid on 64K ROMs." > >However, the code in question contains the comment "WaitNextEvent >and HFSDispatch both have the same trap number ($60)..." > >This seems to be a discrepancy. What am I missing? The Programmers guide makes an unwarranted assumption: That someone using the 64K ROMs is not using HFS. The problem is that there is a file called Hard Disk 20 which implements HFS under the 64K ROMs. The code is right and the note is wrong. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus.