home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: comma.rhein.de!serpens!not-for-mail
- From: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de (Michael van Elst)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
- Subject: Re: FindTask() VERY IMPORTANT
- Date: 11 Mar 1996 17:52:10 +0100
- Organization: dis-
- Message-ID: <4i1lnq$gft@serpens.rhein.de>
- References: <4hfvff$sj6@werple.net.au> <192.6637T931T2098@academy.bastad.se>?20@ <4hm7qm$otm@news.uni-paderborn.de> <MlDlTdS00iWS45Xc5x@andrew.cmu.edu> <4hni69$8ub@tempo.univ-lyon1.fr> <4i1bja$59t@oak28.doc.ic.ac.uk>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: serpens.rhein.de
-
- mdf@doc.ic.ac.uk (Martin Frost) writes:
-
- >Anyway, in exec/execbase.[ih], ThisTask is commented as "readable". Doesn't
- >this mean we're allowed to read it?
-
- No.
-
- If there is a system function that solves your problem then use the system function.
-
- Pure logic should show you that this is the more flexible, portable and compatible
- approach while peeking at data structures is, by definition, inflexible, causes
- compatibility problems and is an compatibility obstacle if the function is ever
- changed.
-
- Only c00l c0d3rz would argue that the function call now needs a few cycles more.
- But then c00l c0d3rz give shit about the system and deserve to be thrown into the
- deepest hell.
-
- Regards,
- --
- Michael van Elst
-
- Internet: mlelstv@serpens.rhein.de
- "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
-