On Friday 06 July 2012, you wrote: > Hi Groepaz, > > > how is PRG cbm specific? and why would SEQ be better? they are *exactly > > the same* - except for that one byte in the directory that makes it SEQ > > or PRG > > > >> Maybe I'm missing an important point but from the arguments I > >> understand so far the decision seem easy to me. > > > > point: PRG is used in most cases. there is no backdraw in using prg. > > > > did someone already add to the confusion that SEQ files usually are > > expected to contain petscii text, not arbitrary dats? =P > > Okay, trying to summarize what I've learned so far: There's basically > not functional difference between SEQ and PRG. _Programatically_ > everything can be done with everyone. It's all _only_ about human > perception - correct? not only. as said before, tons of other programs create and expect PRG files for data. SEQ is usually a plain text file, not something like a bitmap or sprites (for example). so it doesnt make a difference - unless you go outside cc65 world. and to add to what andre wrote: if there is a default type, it should be used for opening existing files too - explicitly that is. because there may very well be two files with the same name, but different type in the directory: 20 "foo" PRG 10 "foo" SEQ is perfectly valid, and nicely breaks the "SEQ is default but opening will open any file anyway" thing =) -- http://www.hitmen-console.org http://magicdisk.untergrund.net http://www.pokefinder.org http://ftp.pokefinder.org IBM is not a necessary evil. IBM is not necessary. <Ted Nelson> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.Received on Fri Jul 6 19:02:32 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2012-07-06 19:02:36 CEST