🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ggk.658908407@tirith.UUCP> ggk@tirith.UUCP (Gregory Kritsch) writes:
>This doesn't quite make sense, unless I make the assumption that an
>asynchronous io call is defined as not buffered, or that asynchronous io
>isn't possible.

	Buffering is done in dos.library in the buffered I/O calls.  Packets
are by definition not buffered.

>Is it not true that I can create and open a file handle myself using
>only DeviceProc() to find the filesystem?

	Yes, though see my earlier message about initialization! (all 0,
except fh_Pos and fh_End which are -1).

>>Which, under 2.0, are now available for use by non-BCPL programs
>>as well.
>
>Thank you, whoever is responsible for this!  I can't wait to get 2.0 on
>my A1000 so I can have fun with those.  I know several projects that
>will benefit greatly.
>
>Hmm, I don't have 2.0 autodocs (yet), how does one request buffering, and
>will it break under 1.3?

	Buffering is done by calling buffered I/O routines that are new
in 2.0.

>They should still be documented somewhere - what if I'm writing my own
>shell?  This is the thing that annoys me the most about AmigaDOS - the
>undocumented magic parts.

	We are documenting and making available a lot of things that were
private/undocumented before.  Certain things should remain private, however,
so that we can avoid incompatibility problems if we need to change some
side-effect in the future.  Where there is a need, we will provide a defined
interface for the needed function (such as the buffered I/O calls).   We
have immense problems already trying to support some of the trickier things
people who figured Dos out do (such as Bill Hawes).

-- 
Randell Jesup, Keeper of AmigaDos, Commodore Engineering.
{uunet|rutgers}!cbmvax!jesup, jesup@cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com  BIX: rjesup  
Common phrase heard at Amiga Devcon '89: "It's in there!"