Re: [cc65] Common macros for dirent.d_type

On 2012-07-05, at 11:04, Markus Stehr wrote:

> Just my 2 cent.

And good ones ;-)

> I see PRG, SEQ and friends as the file extension and if i have an
> unknown to me file i would always think that PRG (PRoGramm) is somehow
> an executable.

And waste time checking them out even if many of them are not executables as Groepaz noted.

> You LOAD and RUN it, unless it states something like "$C000" in its
> name, then you SYS to execute it.

Yes. And you don't know if they are indeed valid executables if we save data as such. You can also crash your machine if the first two (data) bytes are interpreted as load address and point to lalaland. With SEQ you know before you try that there is no point in trying to LOAD them.

> Please correct me when i am wrong here but thats the table i have in my
> brain when it comes to the BAM/CBM file system:
> PRG - "PRoGramm File" (Executables)
> USR - "USeR data file" (Binary data)
> SEQ - "SEQuential data file" (Textfiles, etc...)
> REL - "RELative database file" (Every line has the same size with comma
> seperated fields)
> DEL - "DELeted" 
> DIR - "DIRectory" (only on FD-2000, CMD-HD, IECATA and other more modern
> drives)

That's what I would be saying too. Although in fact, in practice the USR wasn't really used often enough. More often indeed (as Groepaz noted) PRG was used for binary data, because PRGs could be faster LOAD(ed) and therefore leaving USR files for some arguably controversial purposes like e.g. adding fancy stuff to the dir listings ;-)

-- 
SD!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.