ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS
-
@levicki it makes perfect sense in some contexts. I really don't think it's any problem they didn't allocate another named constant just to differentiate between a file existing being the problem and a directory existing being the problem.
[oops, missed the OP in the original fork. I'm such an idiot. I deserve thousand years in purgatory. My own incompetence hurts me so much that I vow to never split any thread ever again. -bz]
-
@Gąska In that case, why have two different possible return codes both of which have the same meaning?
-
they didn't allocate another named constant just to differentiate between a file existing being the problem and a directory existing being the problem.
I don't think it's an actual problem either but they have two allocated anyway - both, apparently, for directory exists.
edit:
-
-
@Gąska In that case, why have two different possible return codes both of which have the same meaning?
Dunno. Miscommunication between teams and corporate inertia? They're actually subtly different somehow? This is definitely WTF. A very minor WTF, but a WTF nonetheless.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in WTF Bites:
why
Because @levicki must be wrong!
Honestly, it's not my fault. He just happens to always say the dumbest things
If it was someone else's post, my reply wouldn't change.
-
They're actually subtly different somehow?
That seems likely, if those are all the errors for creating a directory. Linux has significantly more:
-
Honestly, it's not my fault. He just happens to always say the dumbest things
@levicki said in Resources want to be free!:
"I was wrong to beat the shit out of you yesterday, but it doesn't matter since you made me do it ".
Like this one?
-
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
Thanks, Microsoft!
If I remember right, one is for "there already is a directory with that name" (not always an error in higher-level code) and the other is for "there is a non-directory with that name" (rather more fatal). Add in a little confusion in the documentation as it us written by someone who doesn't grasp the difference, and everything is sensible (except those docs).
-
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
If I am trying to create a directory why does
ERROR_FILE_EXISTSsound like a sensible, self-explaining error name for that function?Because we're not using FAT32 anymore and a directory is a kind of file.
First off, if I have a path
C:\file.dir\tap.dat\bitch.jpgit doesn't tell me which of those path elements is a file that exists.It tells you the full path already exists. If some part didn't exist, it would either succeed or tell that the containing directory DOESN'T exist.
Furthermore, why one is
ERROR_ALREADY_EXISTSand the other isERROR_FILE_EXISTS?See upthread.
Isn't saying "already exists" the same kind of pleonasm like "create a new", "open existing", "free gift", "tuna fish", etc, not to mention that it omits a key piece of information -- unlike with
ERROR_FILE_EXISTSwhat already exists cannot be inferred just from the error code name.What else would you want to already exist than the full path?
Finally, why is
ERROR_ALREADY_EXISTSused for directory creation API to tell me that directory exists, and also used forCreateFile()in some cases to tell me that a file exists?!?...Because you use directory creation function to create a directory, and file creation function to create a file? What's your point?
-
Because we're not using FAT32 anymore and a directory is a kind of file.
That was even true for FAT12 and FAT16 (except for the root directory, which was a special case) after MS-DOS v1. Because anything else is pretty crazy (or effectively needs an actual database) and a generic bag-o'-bytes abstraction is very easy to build on for all sorts of things.
-
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
...Because you use directory creation function to create a directory, and file creation function to create a file? What's your point?
Why do you even bother replying to my posts when you don't understand the point?
I love how you start with a false premise (why stop at not understanding? Why not accuse me of beating my wife as well?) and then write your post in such a way that any attempt to straighten the record can be seen as not reading your post carefully.
The points are:
- That the same error code name is used to mean two different things for two different APIs
It's error code. It's not meant to be globally unique, nor to provide exhaustive explanation. It's meant to only let you distinguish between one error condition from another within a single function call.
- That depending on the flags you pass to a single API you get two different error codes for the same error condition
Yes, that WinAPI uses billion option flags instead of making them separate functions is a WTF. But not nearly as much of a WTF as you're making it. Especially compared to what many other companies do in their APIs (which is not provide any useful error code at all).
To me, that's beyond retarded API design
and you obviously cannot find any fault with that
What's with you and these ridiculous absolute statements? You don't happen to wear scary looking black helmet, do you?
because it was me who brought it up
No. It has nothing to do with you personally. It's because what you say is ridiculous. If anyone else said it, my reaction would be the same: it's blowing things out of proportion and is also based on incorrect mental model of what files and directories are. WinAPI isn't perfect, but it's surprisingly well designed for such an ancient behemoth, and while saying all that naming makes sense might be too far fetched, at least it serves its purpose in that the API user can always tell what went wrong (once they learn what particular codes mean in particular situations).
What surprises me is that you are getting upvotes for disagreeing with me without merit, seemingly from people who can't think for themselves and have to agree with you probably also just in order to disagree with me.
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
Because we're not using FAT32 anymore and a directory is a kind of file.
No, you are wrong. It is not a kind of file, because you cannot create it using
CreateFile()API and you can't use(Read|Write|Seek)File()on it.Directory is a file without content stream. Of course you can't manipulate its content stream if it doesn't exist. I mean, what did you expect? However, you can use other file functions to operate on directories.
GetFileAttributesExW function (fileapi.h) - Win32 apps
Retrieves attributes for a specified file or directory. (Unicode)
Retrieves the date and time that a file or directory was created, last accessed, and last modified.
Just to name a few.
With CreateFile() you can only get a handle to it with OPEN_EXISTING, FILE_FLAG_BACKUP_SEMANTICS, and SeBackupPrivilege or SeRestorePrivilege for that one special purpose of bypassing normal security checks when using Backup(Read|Seek|Write) API.
Wrong. You can use just
OPEN_EXISTING | FILE_FLAG_BACKUP_SEMANTICS, and then you don't get the special security treatment and you can use it like any other directory handle, for everything you'd want to use directory handle for. Did you even read the documentation before posting?
-
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
Repeat after me -- directory is NOT a file.
WTF are you talking about?!?! Literally EVERYTHING is a file!
-
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
Repeat after me
If you insist, but I cannot tell a lie so.........
@levicki is NOT correct.
That's as close as i could get...... i want to say sorry but..... as previously mentioned about the lying ...... yeah....... so... sorry about not being able to say sorry about not being able to repeat your words as spoken.
-
@levicki said in WTF Bites:
I love how you start with a false premise...
I didn't start with a false premise -- I started by posting something I thought was a minor WTF
I meant that one paragraph I quoted. That paragraph started with a false premise. Learn to read.
Also. If "beyond retarded API design" is a minor WTF for you, is there anything that could possibly count as major WTF? Or even moderate WTF?
and you butted in with your usual dismissive style towards anything I say, obviously without understanding the point, because why ask "what's the point" if you did?
Oh, you're one of them cyborg people, totally unable to comprehend indirect intentions? You see, when I said "what's your point", I meant that I understand your point as stated and it doesn't make the least bit of sense. It's rude to say that outright, so instead I did what non-cyborgs tend to do, which is convey criticism behind an innocent sounding question.
Wrong. You can use just
OPEN_EXISTING | FILE_FLAG_BACKUP_SEMANTICS, and then you don't get the special security treatment and you can use it like any other directory handle, for everything you'd want to use directory handle for.I never said you cannot use that flag without privileges.
Yes you did. When you list several flags with "and" between them, it means all of them are required at once. And "for that one special purpose" means that there are no other purposes you could use
CreateFilefor opening a directory, which is wrong too.The point was that you cannot create a directory with
CreateFileso it follows that directory is not a file. If the directory was a file, then you could create a file with a same name and overwrite it and vice versa.Directory doesn't behave like a regular file, yes. But none of what you said means it's not a file.
On a side note, circle is a special type of ellipse, but you can't draw an ellipse using a DrawCircle method while the opposite is possible. In the case of directory and file, neither is possible --
CreateDirectorycannot create files andCreateFilecannot create directories. Hence, they are not the same or even a specialization of each other.Yes, regular file isn't a directory, and a directory isn't a regular file. But both are kinds of file. There is some base functionality that's shared by all files, whether it's a regular file, a directory, or some other kind of file, such as symbolic link (which is neither a regular file nor a directory but still very definitely a file).
-
Yes, regular file isn't a directory, and a directory isn't a regular file. But both are kinds of file. There is some base functionality that's shared by all files, whether it's a regular file, a directory, or some other kind of file, such as symbolic link (which is neither a regular file nor a directory but still very definitely a file).
If you want to say that regular files and directories are both implementations of an abstract concept then that's fine, but could you (for the benefit of all the people reading your post) stick to less ambiguous terms?
At least use something like "filesystem item" and stick to it, otherwise you get this word salad like "a directory is a file but not really the same as a file, it's the other kind of file".
Oh, and one other thing: threads are free, this is no longer a "bite".
-
-
Yes, regular file isn't a directory, and a directory isn't a regular file. But both are kinds of file. There is some base functionality that's shared by all files, whether it's a regular file, a directory, or some other kind of file, such as symbolic link (which is neither a regular file nor a directory but still very definitely a file).
If you want to say that regular files and directories are both implementations of an abstract concept then that's fine, but could you (for the benefit of all the people reading your post) stick to less ambiguous terms?
I'm using common terminology used by everyone else. Should I stop saying variable as well, because it's so confusing that not all variables can change?
At least use something like "filesystem item" and stick to it, otherwise you get this word salad like "a directory is a file but not really the same as a file, it's the other kind of file".
It's your problem that proper terminology doesn't make sense to you. Educate yourself or GTFO.
Oh, and one other thing: threads are free, this is no longer a "bite".
The thing is, creating a thread makes it look like I care, and most of the time I don't.
-
If you insist, but I cannot tell a lie so...
-
@Gąska said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
The thing is, creating a thread makes it look like I care, and most of the time I don't.
Your master account has ensured that you will be made to care
-
@Gąska said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
The thing is, creating a thread makes it look like I care, and most of the time I don't.
LOL, joke's on you. I missed selecting @levicki's OP when I did the fork so now it looks like you started this.
-
-
I feel like someone should mention that in ye olden days, a "file" was actually a folder of stuff, and a "directory" was a list of things and where they could be found, e.g. the documents in a file folder.
Flame on.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
stick to less ambiguous terms?
What, like
object?Linux (per the
mknod(2)manpage) usesfilesystem node. I'm not sure exactly how many types there are, but I can name at least files, directories, symlinks, named pipes, named sockets, and devices (character or block).
-
@PleegWat stat(2) manpage, on the other hand, calls them all files. The macro to check if a given filesystem node is a regular file is called S_ISREG(). This convention is used in other places, too.
-
@boomzilla said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@Gąska said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
The thing is, creating a thread makes it look like I care, and most of the time I don't.
LOL, joke's on you. I missed selecting @levicki's OP when I did the fork so now it looks like you started this.
A simple yet extremely effective psychological trick to make the mods get off their high
.
-
@Gąska said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@PleegWat stat(2) manpage, on the other hand, calls them all files. The macro to check if a given filesystem node is a regular file is called S_ISREG(). This convention is used in other places, too.
Consistency? What's that?
I think I've seen
filesystem objectas well.
-
A directory is absolutely not a file by the common meanings of the words, and not by the WinAPI meanings. I don't know what the fuck you're all upset at.
-
@anonymous234 LDS
-
@anonymous234 said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
A directory is absolutely not a file by the common meanings of the words
Constant variable. Void function. Negative zero. When did programmers start caring about common meanings of words?
and not by the WinAPI meanings.
Then why do 2/3rds of WinAPI functions that operate on directories have "File" in name?
-
@Gąska said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@anonymous234 said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
A directory is absolutely not a file by the common meanings of the words
Constant variable. Void function. Negative zero. When did programmers start caring about common meanings of words?
and not by the WinAPI meanings.
Then why do 2/3rds of WinAPI functions that operate on directories have "File" in name?
It seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
-
@JBert said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
threads are free, this is no longer a "bite".
It's Mr. Creosote's wafer thin mint.
-
@levicki said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@Tsaukpaetra said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
WTF are you talking about?!?! Literally EVERYTHING is a file!
Everything?
rm -rf TsaukpaetraAnd now you don't exist.
Not correct. Your view of the filesystem now includes no references to [REDACTED], which is not the same thing as not existing.
-
@levicki said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@Tsaukpaetra said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
Not correct. Your view of the filesystem now includes no references to [REDACTED], which is not the same thing as not existing.
dd -i /dev/null -o /dev/TsaukpaetraBetter?
No, now you're just spewing nothing at me, which is, actually pretty normal if I'm to be honest.
Edit: You also got the syntax completely wrong, but I don't blame you.
ddis a really shitty-old program that doesn't use arguments like first-world programs do.
-
-
@levicki Oh good. For a moment I almost thought you were being serious.
-
@Tsaukpaetra 'Fraid that's actually worse. Instead you'll be computing pi for all eternity.
-
@levicki said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@Gąska said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
I meant that one paragraph I quoted. That paragraph started with a false premise. Learn to read.
I know perfectly well what YOU meant
Then how about you reflect that knowledge in your posts, instead of rambling about things that never happened and the only way you could possibly think they happened is if you completely misread what I wrote?
but what I meant required reading past the "I didn't start..." part of the sentence. How about you learn to not take what I said out of context?!?
I... didn't take it out of context? I addressed everything you said, in full, and skipped no part? Like, why do you think I even said what part I was referring to? Hint: it's because the rest of your sentence is based on me referring to another post entirely and therefore was completely wrong, and I pointed out exactly what makes it completely wrong.
@Gąska said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
Also. If "beyond retarded API design" is a minor WTF for you, is there anything that could possibly count as major WTF? Or even moderate WTF?
If I said it was moderate or major you would have said I am blowing it out of proportion.
Would I be wrong?
See? Your intent whenever you are replying to me is malicious
No - my intent is to communicate to you that you SHOULDN'T say the design is beyond retarded when you DON'T MEAN to say it's beyond retarded.
you are always looking for some bit of my post to dissect, take out of context, and misinterpret on purpose just so you can have something to criticize.
...said @levicki, after he took my comment on his use of "when did you stop beating your wife" argument, cut the quote right after the beginning quotes, intentionally misrepresented what I was referring to, then commenced beating the hell out of that strawman.
@Gąska said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
Oh, you're one of them cyborg people, totally unable to comprehend indirect intentions?
Talking about yourself and projecting your own flaws on others again? Pity you are unable to self-reflect.
It's funny to see you lecture me about self-reflection while literally at the very same moment you ignored the example I've provided of you totally missing a point, and haven't spent even one microsecond reflecting over it.
@Gąska said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
It's rude to say that outright
Go ahead and say whatever you want, it wouldn't be the first time that you have been rude and called me names. Just stop pretending that you are a nice guy -- you are an intolerable asshole.
Come on, cyborg. I wasn't even trying to convey my passive-aggressiveness this time. Even primitive pattern matching would notice I'm intentionally painting myself as anything but nice here.
@Gąska said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
Yes you did. When you list several flags with "and" between them, it means all of them are required at once.
No I did not, no it doesn't mean, and you can't read. My sentence:
With CreateFile() you can only get a handle to it with OPEN_EXISTING, FILE_FLAG_BACKUP_SEMANTICS <-- that's the first part of the sentence -- note that OPEN_EXISTING is not a flag, and it's not even in the same enumeration. So, I listed two necessary, but distinct conditions required to even get the directory handle as a comma separated list.
...and SeBackupPrivilege or SeRestorePrivilege for that one special purpose of bypassing normal security checks when using Backup(Read|Seek|Write) API <-- that's the sentence continuation which clarifies that there is a different behavior if your user token has the necessary privileges (and they are activated).
So yes, I didn't say what you claim and you can't read.
That's the most convoluted grammar structure I have ever seen. There is literally zero people in the entire world that would interpret your "A, B, and C or D" as anything even remotely close to what you intended. If you mean just the first two are required and the last two are completely optional, why didn't you say "OPEN_EXISTING and FILE_FLAG_BACKUP_SEMANTICS, and..." like a normal human being? If you use non-standard grammar that can very easily be confused for something entirely different, don't act surprised when people misunderstand.
@Gąska said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
Yes, regular file isn't a directory, and a directory isn't a regular file. But both are kinds of file.
Ok genius, if they are both "kinds of file" why they don't share a common error code?
They... do? I'm sorry, which code are you talking about again, and when they don't share it? Because as far as I can tell from the docs,
CreateFile()has identical error codes for identical operations regardless of what the file is, save for the additional restrictions on using special files.@Gąska said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
The thing is, creating a thread makes it look like I care, and most of the time I don't.
Oh but you enjoy arguing, you just hate doing hard work like reading, fact checking, and creating threads.
As if you ever read, fact checked, or created anything.
@Gąska said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
Constant variable. Void function. Negative zero. When did programmers start caring about common meanings of words?
In which programming language you have to write
constant variable integer a?None because programmers hate using full words. But e.g. C++ specification says "the constexpr specifier shall be applied only to the definition of a variable (...)", which makes it quite clear that at least they consider a constant variable to be a thing. Rust spec literally says "local variables are immutable unless declared otherwise". FWIW, C# spec explicitly says that a constant isn't a variable. And Java sidesteps the issue by using keyword "final" instead and pretending that when they say "final variable", they don't it's constant.
Void function is called procedure by those who know shit.
I guess nobody in the C++ committee knows shit. The words "void function" appear numerous times in the spec.
Negative zero exists only in IEEE754, not in math and it is for all purposes equivalent to the positive one.
That's my point. People who made IEEE-754 didn't care about common meanings of words. And it's not exactly equivalent in behavior, but whatever, this post is already way too long as it is.
-
@levicki said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
No, I am overwriting your master boot record with zeros. You will continue to operate until reboot, but afterwards you're fucked. Don't fall asleep tonight!
dd -i /dev/null -o /dev/Tsaukpaetra
I'm pretty sure you have to use /dev/zero for that, /dev/null will just return EOF.
Not that I really want to get caught in the middle of this mind-numbingly boring discussion...
I guess that's how Blakey felt about every thread converging to C++ language lawyering, except he was wrong.
-
@topspin said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
Not that I really want to get caught in the middle of this mind-numbingly boring discussion...
Speaking of - I wonder when even @Tsaukpaetra stops reading it.
-
@Gąska said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@topspin said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
Not that I really want to get caught in the middle of this mind-numbingly boring discussion...
Speaking of - I wonder when even @Tsaukpaetra stops reading it.
I will respond when spoken to.
I expect if it exceeds more than 141 posts in a three hour period of vapid inanity I will become disinclined to continue.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@Gąska said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@topspin said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
Not that I really want to get caught in the middle of this mind-numbingly boring discussion...
Speaking of - I wonder when even @Tsaukpaetra stops reading it.
I will respond when spoken to.
Sounds like potential for DoS.
I expect if it exceeds more than 141 posts in a three hour period of vapid inanity I will become disinclined to continue.
Oh, you've thought of that.
-
@topspin said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
Oh, you've thought of that.
Wasn't thought of, was experienced.
Proof-evident that I can become overloaded!
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@topspin said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
Oh, you've thought of that.
Wasn't thought of, was experienced.
Proof-evident that I can become overloaded!
Considering you're still doing the job of an entire IT department, at 1.5 places, that does seem surprising.
-
@topspin said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@Tsaukpaetra said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@topspin said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
Oh, you've thought of that.
Wasn't thought of, was experienced.
Proof-evident that I can become overloaded!
Considering you're still doing the job of an entire IT department, at 1.5 places, that does seem surprising.
It's a good measurement of capacity; empirically it's actually decreasing though so....
-
@topspin said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@levicki said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
No, I am overwriting your master boot record with zeros. You will continue to operate until reboot, but afterwards you're fucked. Don't fall asleep tonight!
dd -i /dev/null -o /dev/Tsaukpaetra
I'm pretty sure you have to use /dev/zero for that, /dev/null will just return EOF.
Not that I really want to get caught in the middle of this mind-numbingly boring discussion...
yeah. /dev/null as the input file to dd is a NOP
all it does as an input stream is sit at EOF
so........ much like the rest of the argument. it doesn't work.... at all..... no matter how you look at it.
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@Gąska said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@topspin said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
Not that I really want to get caught in the middle of this mind-numbingly boring discussion...
Speaking of - I wonder when even @Tsaukpaetra stops reading it.
I will respond when spoken to.
I expect if it exceeds more than 141 posts in a three hour period of vapid inanity I will become disinclined to continue.
That's an oddly specific number.
-
@PleegWat said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
That's an oddly specific number.
Three hours = 3 * 60 minutes = 180; 180 - 141 = 39; 3 + 9 = 12; 1 + 2 = ...
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@topspin said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@Tsaukpaetra said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@topspin said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
Oh, you've thought of that.
Wasn't thought of, was experienced.
Proof-evident that I can become overloaded!
Considering you're still doing the job of an entire IT department, at 1.5 places, that does seem surprising.
It's a good measurement of capacity; empirically it's actually decreasing though so....
That's called aging. Welcome to the
club!
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
@PleegWat said in ERROR_THREAD_EXISTS:
That's an oddly specific number.
Three hours = 3 * 60 minutes = 180; 180 - 141 = 39; 3 + 9 = 12; 1 + 2 = ...
Valve intensifies
