Re: File handling
Daniel Berstein:
> access chmod chsize lock
> unlock mktemp remove rename
> mkdir rmdir
GREAT! I vote for this 
Irv Mullins:
>How about system(delete, rename, mkdir, rmdir, attrib)?
They need command.com AND they will cause screen flicker under exw.
The last one ALSO needs attrib.exe.
What if attrib.exe has a virus?
>The file/record lockings are available via an interrupt,
>so a Euphoria include file could be written to call
>the interrupt, if there was any interest. How many people are
>runnng Euphoria on shared data?
How many people are running a share-aware program on non-shared data?
How many people are not using the lock/unlock mechanism of C?
How many people omit SHARED or LOCK ... when OPENing a file in BASIC?
What I am saying is, that it's better to have something even if most of us
don't use it, than not to have something someone is going to use!
Euphoria is (almost) a complete language, which is why I like it. Why force
programmers to manually code lock() in Assembly? Or, use system() to call
system commands? 
For example, there is someone in this list [me ] who almost never uses
graphics_mode() but is glad it exists when it is needed... who would want
to do system("mode co80", 2); everytime?
Why is there puts() if you can code system("echo " & seq, 2);? (To redirect
output to file you use system("echo " & seq & " >file", 2);)
Why is there printf() if you can code system("echo " & sprintf(fmtstr,
seq), 2);?
Ah, a few new procedures/functions (on file handling) will NOT hurt anyone
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
