«

"Mxsmanic" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Keith Willshaw writes:
>
>> The OS neither knows nor cares, all that matters is that the action
>> is legal.
>
> Right. Which makes it possible for applications to misuse even the best
> APIs.
> QED.
>

The question you put was

> If a program creates a file, how does the API check to see that the file's
> name is correct?

Now API's are NOT only implemented at the OS level but I dont expect a
tour guide to know that. In the context of the OS API the posit that the
name
is 'correct' simply means legal etc.

As an example the Windows WriteFile Api takes the following arguments

BOOL WriteFile(
HANDLE hFile, // handle to file to write to
LPCVOID lpBuffer, // pointer to data to write to file
DWORD nNumberOfBytesToWrite, // number of bytes to write
LPDWORD lpNumberOfBytesWritten, // pointer to number of bytes written
LPOVERLAPPED lpOverlapped // pointer to structure needed for overlapped
I/O
);It returns False if the operation fails , because of an illegal name for
example.
The details of the error may be retrieved by a GetLastError call.

On the other hand the API's I call at the application level have much
more specific error checking. If I attempt to open a jpeg filewith an API
it reads the file header to check its a valid format.

Keith

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Ray Fischer writes:
>
>> As YOU define "misuse".
>
> The original assertion was that a properly designed API could prevent all
> misuse.

Ray, MxsManiac is trolling you, using his standard technique. You're
wasting your time talking to him.

<http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/msg/737ae6eefc6efa89>
---
Kibo informs me that "Mike Kohary" <s...@be.gone> stated that:

>"Mxsmanic" <mxsma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>> Mike Kohary writes:

>> > I'd love to, if you'd left the quote intact enough to know what we
were
>> > talking about.

>> If you were able to call it misinformation, you knew what we were
>> talking about. If you had enough information to say it was wrong, you
>> also had enough information to explain why. But you haven't. Hmm.

>Once you cut the quote out, I'm not going back to see what it was.
This is
>Usenet and I'm active on it - hundreds or thousands of messages to
read. I
>can't possibly remember what it was that I called "misinformation" on your
>part, unless you leave the quote intact.

Maniac does it quite deliberately, to make it as difficult as possible
for people to tell when he's misquoted them, lied, or answered a
question in a totally different context to the one in which it was
asked. As a bonus for him, it helps him just generally confuse the
argument.

Here's a demonstration of his technique, loosely modelled on part of
this thread, & simplified drastically for clarity[0]:
==================
(Post #1, by Joe Bloggs)
"My Brand X DSLR is great at ISO 800. The photos I get are way better
than film!"
==================
(Post #2, by Maniac)

>The photos I get are way better than film!

Maniac: "No. You've been taken in by the digital marketeers. No digicam
will ever equal the quality of the photos I take with Brand Y film."
==================
(Post3, by Joe Bloggs)

>>It takes photos that are way better than film!
>Maniac: "No. You've been taken in by the digital marketeers. No
digital will ever equal the quality of the photos I take with Brand Y film."

But that film is only ISO 100. It doesn't make any sense to compare it
to a Brand X DLSR at ISO 800.

And besides, there isn't any film that can beat the Brand X DSLR in
noise/grain at ISO 800.
==================
(Post4, by Maniac)

>But that film is only ISO 100.

It's good enough for real photographers like myself. Digicams are far
too low-resolution to compete with film.
[About 30 lines of irrelevant pseudoscience about film grain vs digital
noise, etc, along with a nonsensical claim that digital image sensors
can apparently only be made for one 'speed'. Interspersed with a bunch
of inflammatory over-generalisations about every photographer in the
world who doesn't do things his way, designed to raise everyone else's
hackles.]

>And besides, there isn't any film than can beat my DSLR in noise/grain
at ISO 800.

Yes there is, I use it myself. Here's a photo I shot at ISO 800 that's
far better than anyone can do with a digicam:
<http://www.manicac.c0m/myphoto1.jpg>
==================

Notice how the context has been completely changed several times, such
that poor Joe's perfectly reasonable comment, (in its original context)
has been altered to make it look like he's the most clueless kind of
digital-bigot. Also note that while Maniac has out-and-out lied several
times[1], there's is no single statement anyone can point to prove it to
anyone who hasn't been following the whole thread with a microscope,
because Maniac's carefully snipped out the context that would prove it.

He also makes a point of using strongly emotive language, in the hopes
of provoking an emotional response from the person he's misrepresenting
& insulting. If it works, he'll immediately accuse you of being
irrational, & claim that proves that he's been correct all along.

[0] Note also that he typically puts several misdirections in each post,
rather than just one. This way, he can jump on your case if you haven't
over-qualified *every single comment* sufficiently to prevent him from
editing the post to make it look like you're talking about something
that you're not.
His recent bullshit about compression algorithms is a classic example of
his technique, in which he switched definitions for words with both
several technical & colloquial meanings in nearly every post.

In summary, our pet Maniac is a fairly clever troll. The only thing that
lets him down is his reliance on people being too busy to Google for
context, & complete lack of a sense of humour, (a weakness I've used to
make a fool out of him quite a few times, BTW).

[1] The lies. For those who want see if they spotted them all:
(Post #2): Deliberately misquoted Joe as claiming that his DSLR takes
better pictures than film under all circumstances. Joe made no such
claim.
(Post #2): An obvious lie, claiming that film is always superior to
digital, no matter what the situation. When caught in something that
obvious, he usually snips or alters quoted text to cover it up.
(Post #3): The URL is not for a photo taken with Maniac's favourite
brand of colour film that he's been extolling for the last two posts,
but for a photo taken with high speed, professional B&W film, which is
totally irrelevant to any comparison between a colour DSLR & colour
film.
---

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Mxsmanic <> wrote:
>Ray Fischer writes:
>
>> As YOU define "misuse".
>
>The original assertion was that a properly designed API could prevent all
>misuse.

As YOU define "misuse".

Let's look at what you originally wrote:

If a program creates a file, how does the API check to see that
the file's name is correct?

Looks like your memory is as good as everything else you write.

--
Ray Fischer

Bob Larter <> wrote:
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Ray Fischer writes:
>>
>>> As YOU define "misuse".
>>
>> The original assertion was that a properly designed API could prevent all
>> misuse.
>
>Ray, MxsManiac is trolling you, using his standard technique. You're
>wasting your time talking to him.

I don't mind embrrassing him. He's an idiot.

--
Ray Fischer

Ray Fischer wrote:
> Bob Larter <> wrote:
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer writes:
>>>
>>>> As YOU define "misuse".
>>> The original assertion was that a properly designed API could prevent all
>>> misuse.
>> Ray, MxsManiac is trolling you, using his standard technique. You're
>> wasting your time talking to him.
>
> I don't mind embrrassing him.

You're not embarrassing him - this is what he does for fun.

> He's an idiot.

Yes, & all the more reason not to waste time on him. He's not going to
change just because someone talks sense to him.


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

George Kerby wrote:
>
>
> On 4/4/09 1:37 PM, in article 49d7a8f6$0$1585$, "Ray
> Fischer" <> wrote:
>
>> Bob Larter <> wrote:
>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>> Ray Fischer writes:
>>>>
>>>>> As YOU define "misuse".
>>>> The original assertion was that a properly designed API could prevent all
>>>> misuse.
>>> Ray, MxsManiac is trolling you, using his standard technique. You're
>>> wasting your time talking to him.
>> I don't mind embrrassing him. He's an idiot.
> Said the mullet on the hook.

Heh. I was too polite to say it...

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

George Kerby <> wrote:
> "Bob Larter"
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> Bob Larter <> wrote:
>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>> Ray Fischer writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As YOU define "misuse".
>>>>> The original assertion was that a properly designed API could prevent all
>>>>> misuse.
>>>> Ray, MxsManiac is trolling you, using his standard technique. You're
>>>> wasting your time talking to him.
>>>
>>> I don't mind embrrassing him.
>>
>> You're not embarrassing him - this is what he does for fun.
>>
>And FisHead Rot is his Piñata...

Oh my! Do we all need some Anger Management courses in here, or what?
kerby in <C55E9C54.1A409%>
--
Ray Fischer

George Kerby <> wrote:
>
>
>
>On 4/5/09 12:13 PM, in article 49d8e6b0$0$1624$, "Ray
>Fischer" <> wrote:
>
>> George Kerby <> wrote:
>>> "Bob Larter"
>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>> Bob Larter <> wrote:
>>>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>>>> Ray Fischer writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As YOU define "misuse".
>>>>>>> The original assertion was that a properly designed API could prevent all
>>>>>>> misuse.
>>>>>> Ray, MxsManiac is trolling you, using his standard technique. You're
>>>>>> wasting your time talking to him.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't mind embrrassing him.
>>>>
>>>> You're not embarrassing him - this is what he does for fun.
>>>>
>>> And FisHead Rot is his Piñata...
>>
>> Oh my! Do we all need some Anger Management courses in here, or what?
>> kerby in <C55E9C54.1A409%>
>I'm not ****ed.
>
>Crap, you jumping around like a trained parrot is quite entertaining and

Seems like most of us in here have observed that you are the one with a
missing purpose - outside of the childish outbursts
kryby in <C5BC8977.2207B%>


--
Ray Fischer

George Kerby <> wrote:
>
>
>
>On 4/5/09 8:07 PM, in article 49d955e9$0$1597$, "Ray
>Fischer" <> wrote:
>
>> George Kerby <> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/5/09 12:13 PM, in article 49d8e6b0$0$1624$, "Ray
>>> Fischer" <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> George Kerby <> wrote:
>>>>> "Bob Larter"
>>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>>> Bob Larter <> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ray Fischer writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As YOU define "misuse".
>>>>>>>>> The original assertion was that a properly designed API could prevent
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> misuse.
>>>>>>>> Ray, MxsManiac is trolling you, using his standard technique. You're
>>>>>>>> wasting your time talking to him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't mind embrrassing him.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're not embarrassing him - this is what he does for fun.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And FisHead Rot is his Piñata...
>>>>
>>>> Oh my! Do we all need some Anger Management courses in here, or what?
>>>> kerby in <C55E9C54.1A409%>
>>> I'm not ****ed.
>>>
>>> Crap, you jumping around like a trained parrot is quite entertaining and
>>
>> Seems like most of us in here have observed that you are the one with a
>> missing purpose
>
>No. My purpose here is to point out your ridiculous bullshit

While you're good at whining and crying you're obviously not so good
at doing anything else.

Get a life, kryby

--
Ray Fischer