Re: [cc65] Filenames for POSIX functins on CBM targets

Hello Uz,

* On Thu, Aug 09, 2012 at 11:23:50PM +0200 Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
 
> Problems are:
> 
[1]
>   * We want to support unit numbers and device numbers.
[2]
>   * We want to be able to specify subdirectories.
[3]
>   * There are already kernal replacements that use a special syntax for both.
[4]
>   * Everybody has his pet syntax for this purpose.
[5]
>   * Most people have just one floppy (#8) and won't really benefit, but will
>     have to pay the price (= memory) for a complex file name parser.
[6]
>   * CBM people are used to specify the device number separately. A special,
>     cc65 only syntax will confuse most users more than it helps. Especially
>     if the syntax is different from that used in kernal extensions like
>     Jiffy-DOS.
> 
> What this means is that I'm not strictly against such an extension, but I
> don't see a way to solve all the problems named above. In comparison, using
> _curunit isn't very elegant either, but at least it doesn't eat lots of
> memory.

Note, however, that groepaz' proposal of something chdir()/getcwd()
alike will be consistent with most points above.

[1] Could be solved, because device numbers would be part of chdir(), but
    drive numbers part of the filename
[2] Would be part of chdir(), too (but might require target specific
    implementations?)
[3] could be solved with target specific implementations
[4] is not really a problem, as long as the new syntax can be handled
    (IMHO)
[5] is not a problem as long as _curunit is not removed. Yes, chdir()
    would just set _curunit (and probably more in the case of subdirs).
    So, chdir() and getcwd() will not be linked in as long as these
    functions are not used.
[6] Would also be no problem, as the usage of getcwd()/chdir() would be
    optional.

> > Please note that I'm intentionally trying to not open up a discussion
> > on supporting IDE64 / CMD / <you name them> filename extensions for
> > filesystems with subdirectories. I'm just looking for a consistent way
> > to describe all file locations on a plain vanilla CBM DOS system.
> 
> There's no way to avoid this discussion, because people using more than one
> drive often use stuff like IDE64 or Jiffy-DOS devices. So the people which are
> your target are also the ones that have experiences with other solutions.

Does anyone have an as-complete-as-possible list of all variants
available for extension-specific filename extensions?

Regards,
Spiro.

-- 
Spiro R. Trikaliotis
http://www.trikaliotis.net/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.