manipulate output with SelectOutput()

4 posts / 0 new

Last post

Mon, 2015-07-13 18:10

JosDuchIt

Offline

Last seen: 6 years 4 months ago

Joined: 2012-01-08 20:57

manipulate output with SelectOutput()

In the Gui4Cli source this part reacts to a change in console output specification (con:0/0/.. etc) done with the Gui4Cli interpreter command Set output

	case OUTPUT :
Printf("Set Output %s %s",param, val);
		if (DEFcpOPEN) Close (DEFcp);
		DEFcp = ZERO; //OS4 was NULL, Global variable
		DEFcpOPEN = 0;
		if ((DEFcp = Open (val, MODE_OLDFILE)))
		{	
			Printf("Set Output  %s opened",val);
			SelectOutput (DEFcp);
	 		DEFcpOPEN = 1; /// global variable too
			stccpy (Defconsolespec, val, 125); 
		}
		else Printf ("*ERR: Invalid Console spec:\n->%s", val); // we do see this
		break;

The Gui4Cli user doc doc only considers respecification of the console. However ( i don't have a printer connected) set OUTPUT PRT: works if the printer preference is set to using printtofile.device. Only problem there i can't get rid of an initial requester asking to define the output file. I tried to use set output RAM:output but got the erroor message above, i don't understand why

Mon, 2015-07-13 22:01

thomas

Offline

Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago

Joined: 2011-05-16 14:23

MODE_OLDFILE opens the file

MODE_OLDFILE opens the file for reading. If it does not exist, Open() fails. Using a file opened for reading with SelectOutput() seems stupid to me.

Tue, 2015-07-14 21:59

(Reply to #2) #3

JosDuchIt

Offline

Last seen: 6 years 4 months ago

Joined: 2012-01-08 20:57

Thanks Thomas, failing to

Thanks Thomas, failing to see the obvious. Since i could change to a new CON: or even to PRT: i did not suspect the MODE_OLDFILE I still wonder why the author chose it. with MODE_NEWFILE the program works as expected.

Fri, 2015-07-17 19:57

(Reply to #3) #4

hypex

Offline

Last seen: 2 days 14 hours ago

Joined: 2011-09-09 16:20

IIRC MODE_OLDFILE was used

IIRC MODE_OLDFILE was used for CON: window specifications in the 1.3 days. So it might have been the standard thing to do. But I might need to check that.

Search form

User login