Re: [MiNT] Dopendir() return values

[Paul Wratt <paul.wratt@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.co.uk> wrote:
> On 11/01/11 18:30, Jean-François Lemaire wrote:
>> On Tuesday 01 Nov 2011 17:39:09 Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.co.uk> writes:
>>>> On 11/01/11 15:10, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>>>> Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.co.uk> writes:
>>>>>> But that wasn't the original topic. It was explaining the return values
>>>>>> of Dopendir.
>>>>> The point is that it does not fit with existing GEMDOS practice, which
>>>>> causes confusion, obviously.
>>>> Not in my eyes, the point is that it's an extension.
>>>>
>>>> Dopendir is a un*x'ism, so it should follow what it's trying to emulate,
>>>> otherwise applications that use it, i.e. un*x apps, will fail with
>>>> inappropriate errors.
>>> GEMDOS errors do not exactly fit the Unix errors, and those differences
>>> need to be kept in mind.
>> To sum up my original query: MiNT returns -33 for a non-existing directory,
>> while the "semi-official" doc never mentions -33 as a possible value for
>> Dopendir() but any of -34, -36 and -39. This led me to write buggy code, so
>> something is wrong. Either the doc, or the returned value. I personnaly don't
>> care which one.
>
> I think the doc needs to reflect that -33 is a valid return code.
>
> Alan.
>
has this chnage been commited to TOSHYP yet?