On 2012-08-10, at 17:23, Groepaz wrote: >> Idea one: We strive for cross-target filenames. This would (at least >> potentially) allow for non-trivial filename string constants in source >> code to be valid across targets. However the syntax of those strings >> would be so strange to users that it would potentially necessary to >> provide target-specific UIs in order to create them from user input. >> >> Idea two: We strive for "fully functional" filenames while admitting >> that they are target-specific (beyond the trvial case of >> "filename-only"). They would allow only to share trivial filename >> strings in source code but would be (at least potentially) meaningful >> enough to users of a certain target to be entered directly. >> >> I personally strongly believe that we should head for 'idea two': > > same here. i have written a bunch of things in CC65 now, and while all this > cross-target-portability is a nice theory, Isn't it? ;-) > you will almost certainly end up > with (quite a bunch of) target specific ifdefs in a non trivial program > anyway. OK - I am not going to argue about this idea, even if it is mine ;-) Frankly, I am not sure myself if this was feasible in the end. But you admit that the theory is nice... I can imagine it even working well but at a big cost paid with memory :-( So - EOT from me on this. -- SD! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Aug 10 17:45:56 2012
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2012-08-10 17:46:00 CEST