On Montag 29 März 2010, you wrote: > But - anyway - if you want to support some "real world" program, which > requires PRG (or whatever) even for pure data, then AFAIR you can set > the filetype "on the fly" rather than patching the runtime, isn't it so: sure, you can do that... but since pretty much *all* files i am dealing with are PRG, i'd rather make it the default :) > If OTOH you write generic/portable program with no legacy support - > then USR is just as fine (or even finer due to lack of ambiguity/doubt > about the first two bytes) as PRG. > Using the files created above: [snip] is it really so that fopen will open a file purely based on the name? i somehow doubt it (that'd be a bug in my book too, what if there exist two files with different type but same name - which is entire possible and perfectly fine for cbm dos ?) > So my question was more about what is the real advantage of having the > patched runtime vs. setting the file type from within the code itself? its purely a convinience thing, and its more "natural" behaviour to me atleast. having to explicitly set the filetype to something else than the default should be the exception, not the rule. and with USR as default it is exactly the other way around, for me atleast :) -- http://www.hitmen-console.org http://magicdisk.untergrund.net http://www.pokefinder.org http://ftp.pokefinder.org The general rule about people on the internet seems to be 'attractive, single, mentally stable'... now,choose two ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Mar 29 15:45:25 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2010-03-29 15:45:28 CEST