Hello, * On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 12:09:07PM +0200 Mia Magnusson wrote: > Den Sun, 26 Aug 2018 20:52:49 +0100 skrev smf <smf@null.net>: > One thing is that five buffers are needed at all. To conserve buffers, > the new version of the file could be saved with a special file type, > and when the save is complete that could be detected by the normal > save routine, and the old file scratched, and the normal scratch > routine could search for a file with a special file type and change > that to the normal file type. This could be considered not a bug as > there really are five buffers in an otherwise bug free drive and there > isn't much use for being able to SAVE@ while also having other files > open at the same time. But in this case, you are not better than doing a: SAVE "NEWFILENAME",8 OPEN 1,8,15,"S0:OLDFILENAME" PRINT#1,"R:NEWFILENAME=OLDFILENAME" CLOSE 1 That is, you need enough space on the disk for both variants, the old and the new file. The "nice" thing about SAVE@ is that this is not needed. You just need the space for the maximum of the size of the old file and of the new file. BTW, all speak about SAVE@. What about writing a file with @, that is: OPEN 1,8,2,"@0:MYDATEFILE,S,W" I would expect that the bug would trigger here, too? Or is it really specific to SAVE@? Regards, Spiro. -- Spiro R. Trikaliotis http://www.trikaliotis.net/Received on 2018-08-27 23:02:43
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.