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

On the Atari 8-bit, we have several popular DOSes:

Atari DOS 2.x (and compatibles)

No Subdirectories
Filenames are 8.3, Device is denoted by a letter, Unit is 1 through 8
"D1:ATARI.TXT"

SpartaDOS 3.x/MyDOS

Subdirectories denoted by ">"
Filenames are 8.3, Devices is denoted by a letter, Unit is 1 through 8
"D1:>SUBDIR>ATARI.TXT"

SpartaDOS 4.x

Same as above, but disk drives (D1: through D15:) can also be denoted by
letters (A:, B:, C:, etc...)
Subdirectories denoted by ">"
Filenames are 8.3, like above

Typically if you pass a valid string to the DOS, things just "work" with
cc65's Atari file i/o functions.

My vote would be for a separate API for a cross platform file library that
sits on-top of the target specific one (mainly a standardized syntax and
filename/subdirectory parser/syntax convertor), so that if you aren't using
cross platform features you don't have to link the bloat.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-cc65@musoftware.de [mailto:owner-cc65@musoftware.de] On Behalf
> Of Oliver Schmidt

<snip>

> 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':
> 
> - Filesystem are just to different to really allow for a common
> filename syntax. I.e. with Apple ProDOS files aren't accessed by drive
> names/numbers at all but rather by volume names. So any "0:..." or
> "A:..." wouldn't work.
> - Such a common syntax would end up with the lowest common
> denominator: 8.3 files without subdirectories.
> - Such a common syntax would look much like an "emulation layer" in
> the sense of Cygwin - which I believe isn't loved much.
> - Such an approach would be quite heavyweight - at least on some targets.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list send mail to majordomo@musoftware.de with
the string "unsubscribe cc65" in the body(!) of the mail.