in article 40426@palm-dev-forum, John Marshall at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 21/2/01 11:23 AM:
> And of course that would be an incompatible change between OS versions...
Sounds to me like something that should have been fixed long ago!
> It looks like thinking of DmResizeRecord as modifying an *existing*
> writable handle, rather than returning a new one, is the right way to go.
Huh? Let's say I do a DmResizeRecord by itself, either to truncate or
elongate a record. The *existing* record has changed and should, by rights,
have the dirty bit set. Why do I then have to futz around with
DmRecordInfo/DmSetRecordInfo when there's already a nifty function that does
exactly this.
And sure in my original sequence I can do a DmResizeRecord/DmGetRecord combo
but isn't this just a waste of cycles?
The jury is still out on DmAttachRecord ... :-).
Stephen Best
Bitware Australia
--
For information on using the Palm Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see
http://www.palmos.com/dev/tech/support/forums/
