At 12:12 PM -0700 on 11/18/99, Scott Raney wrote:
>> Nope -- not true. Consider [for unix] something along the lines of:
>>
>>
>> check for existing temp file, create temp file [no temp races, please]
>> copy stack to temp file
>> use temp file
>> on quit:
>> exec copy-back-stack
>> NuCard is now no longer running; copy-back-stack is
>> copy back the temp file
>> exit
>
>I don't think follow this. I can see this working if you wrap a shell
>script around the whole thing, but then if having two files is OK, why
>not just have the engine and stack separate?
Because you only actually have to worry about one file this way. It does
make a temp file, but so do lots of things.
>And if "copy-back-stack"
>is something the standalone writes out and then executes, you have the
>problem of "who deletes that separate file?"
It's a temp file -- the OS takes care of that. [or it can unlink itself,
and that's certainly doable]
>And of course the problem
>that it would have to be a platform-specific executable.
True, but isn't the engine?
>It's more a matter of just not wanting to write a bunch of code that
>would only work on that one platform. The standalone builder is just
>a stack in MetaCard (like all the rest of the development
>environment), so we don't have C++ code just lying around to handle
>this.
Ah -- I see.
