On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 7:44 AM, Oliver Schmidt <ol.sc@web.de> wrote: >> Might it be because it is a different programming language, with its own >> standard libraries? And the libraries (for any language) are the "emulation >> layers" adding features not present in the assembly interface? Take a simple >> printf() for example. If it wasn't an "emulation layer" with features (e.g. >> format string parsing and translating) not present in the assembly interface >> you would have to put things to stdout in a noticeably different manner. The line is admittedly blurry, but there's a difference between providing extra functionality like printf(), and altering the existing functionality. It's also possible to use putc(har) from C and not use printf at all, for instance. I fully agree that there should ideally be a mechanism for accessing files on different drive units without having to set a magical global. The question is how to do this in a way that won't break compatibility - either across platforms or across CBM DOS implementations. Fake directories seem to me to be a potential problem in both categories. -- Mark J. Reed <markjreed@gmail.com> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Mon Sep 29 15:30:59 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2008-09-29 15:31:01 CEST