From: babcock AT shell1 DOT cybercom DOT net (Robert Babcock) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: Error in _use_lfn documentation Date: 5 Feb 1997 21:39:11 -0500 Organization: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: shell1.cybercom.net To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Eli Zaretskii writes: >If the peer-to-peer link to an OS/2 drive doesn't support long names >(another act of IBM/Microsoft war?), then that's too bad, but I am not sure >this is grave enough cause to change the current design. I just tested, and found reasonable behavior: if I run _use_lfn() (from Win95 over a peer-to-peer link) on an OS/2 FAT disk, it says LFN not supported. If I test an HPFS disk, it says LFN is supported (and I really can see the long names). So I think it does correctly report whether LFN's are supported on the drive. I would suggest a small rewording of the documentation from: "Note that on Windows 95 you don't need to distinguish between different drives: they all support LFN API." To: Note that on Windows 95 you don't need to distinguish between different local drives: they all support LFN API. Network drives may or may not support LFN API. >> It seems that I can fix the problem by making an early call to >> _use_lfn("c:\\");. >That is indeed a work-around that I suggest in your case. But please be >aware that you generally cannot be 100% sure that c:/ is the boot drive, >or even a local drive. For now, I'll assume that if C: is not a local drive, you deserve whatever happens to you. It doesn't seem to hurt anything to make LFN calls from Win95 to a drive which doesn't support LFN. Now, I wonder what happens with Netware drives when the long namespace is installed...