From: Ullrich von Bassewitz (uz_at_musoftware.de)
Date: 2003-02-01 13:36:15
Hi!
On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 11:32:04AM +0100, Tim Schürmann wrote:
> Yes, it use CBM file I/O.
>
> Hm. Does the use of the standard C file routines make a sence in this context?
The correct question here would be: Does the use of CBM file routines make
sense in this context? What do you gain by using non portable code? Is it
really worth the trouble writing non portable code?
Why not write portable code, and ressort to non portable code only if there is
a special reason for it? Writing portable code is not much more trouble in
most cases, and it is a lot more useful in the long run.
> Like loadkoala loadpaintmagic use C64-adresses for the bitmap and colour-ram
> stuff. So it will be remain a C64 specific program.
Yes, but CBM file I/O and C file I/O do not mix very well, so chances are that
your code will not work in a program that uses C file I/O. But even without
this, I would always suggest to use standard routines if there is no special
reason not to do so. Maybe someone wants to use the load routines and do some
conversion before displaying the picture on another platform? When using C
file I/O, she would have to replace just the display routines. When using CBM
file I/O, your code is not usable at all.
> Your intesion is to have an example for the standard C file routines. Is this
> right?
No. Every C book comes with dozens of examples. It is my intention to make the
code as useful as possible for as many people as possible.
Regards
Uz
--
Ullrich von Bassewitz uz_at_musoftware.de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo_at_musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : 2003-02-01 13:36:57 CET