Re: [cc65] Common macros for dirent.d_type

From: <>
Date: 2012-07-06 21:06:32
On 2012-07-06, at 18:42, Groepaz wrote:

>> But if a programmer doesn't want to use LOAD but probably even stay
>> with the POSIX stuff then he won't benefit from PRG and thus SEQ seems
>> the better default - keeping CBM-specific stuff from the source code.
> 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

CBM DOS filetypes are similar in function to beloved msdos filename extensions, aren't they?

Yet you don't insist on using FOO.EXE for data files instead of e.g. FOO.DAT, do you?

>> 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.

In case of LOADable blocks. Not so much in case of sequential data, read byte by byte and processed in portions. For such cases SEQ was/is the most natural choice.

> there is no backdraw in using prg.

Why then examples in the books about programming data access using sequential files uses SEQ files? Do you think the authors were stupid?

> did someone already add to the confusion that SEQ files usually are expected 
> to contain petscii text, not arbitrary dats? =P

"Usually" is the secondary key here. And even this is arguable. They are _always_ expected to contain data, though. Arbitrary or not doesn't matter that much.

Once again - PRG files are expected to be LOADed, SEQ files are expected to be read byte by byte, period.

To unsubscribe from the list send mail to with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.
Received on Fri Jul 6 21:07:08 2012

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2012-07-06 21:07:11 CEST