Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Should be a hint on it's own!' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Should be a hint on it's own!
Authored by: discordantus on Jul 22, '03 01:17:34AM

This one is really a hint in it's own right... I had no idea that you could access the resource fork that way!

OTOH, emptying the resource fork is not the same as deleting it, I think. I'm basing this on the behavior of ResEdit; when you open a file, sometimes it says "This file does not have a resource fork. opening it will create one"... and then it creates an empty resource fork. I would assume based on that that there is some amount of overhead consumed by the resource fork all by itself, or every file would automagickly have one.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Should be a hint on it's own!
Authored by: mj on Jul 22, '03 01:40:53PM
It turns out Rob already has posted a hint about this here, and there's an interested comment at the bottom about using the '..namedfork' route to get at any named fork.

You're right about there being some overhead with a resource fork. When you 'create' a resource fork with ResEdit, it adds a header to the fork. But every file does automatically have a resource fork that you can read from and write to, it just normally has length 0, i.e. no header info.

Michael

[ Reply to This | # ]