Re: Ssystem GETCOOKIE return values

[Konrad Kokoszkiewicz <draco@mi.com.pl>]

> I found another little problem when trying to use Ssystem. The value
> of a cookie is returned in the GEMDOS return value, and -1 is defined
> as "cookie not found".
> 
> However: -1L is a perfectly valid value for a cookie. The call needs
> to be changed in a way such that the cookie value is returned somewhere
> else. How about returning it in the second argument, which is currently
> documented that it needs to be set to NULL. If something different from
> NULL is passed, the kernel would put the cookie contents in the long
> the argument points to, and the return code would be set to E_OK.
> 
> Konrad, my mails may sound a bit picky, but I really tried to sit down
> and make my programs support SECURITYLEVEL 2. However, I feel that
> these calls and changes really need a bit more fine tuning...

Well, I have to admit that your mails about that are actually *welcome*.
Ssystem() call is new and perhaps its design is not 100% perfect, so I
exspect feedback from programmers if they encounter any problems or have
suggestions. At least, it is beta stuff and I doubt that one programmer
can predict all consequences, like those with Setexc() and the ciritcal
error handler. Well, I didn't think about it inserting the if
(securelevel) stuff there (my fault, of course).

As for GETCOOKIE, I personally like your proposition. Any other
suggestions/changes?

Gtx,

--
Konrad M.Kokoszkiewicz
|mail: draco@mi.com.pl                  | Atari Falcon030/TT030/65XE |
|http://www.orient.uw.edu.pl/~conradus/ |  *** FreeMiNT 1.14.7. ***  |

** Ea natura multitudinis est,
** aut servit humiliter, aut superbe dominatur (Liv. XXIV,25)
*************************************************************
** U pospolstwa normalne jest, ze albo sluzy ono unizenie,
** albo bezczelnie sie panoszy.