From:	eplmst AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se (Martin Stromberg)
Message-Id:	<199902230944.KAA04890@juno.erisoft.se>
Subject:	Re: FAT32
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com (DJGPP-WORKERS)
Date:	Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:44:23 +0100 (MET)
Cc:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli said:
> Please try to stick to the same whitespace style as in the original
> sources.  The above hunk of changes seems to be due to different
> amount of whitespace only.  Please avoid that.

It sure wasn't intentional. But I refuse to be hindered in my coding by 
not structuring the code and making it sufficiently readable.

> I suggest to say a couple of words describing the ``trouble''
> mentioned here.  People would like to know what to expect, and perhaps
> also how to avoid that.

Hmm. I'm not sure what the trouble was. Can you enlighten me again?

> Sigh.  Static variables such as `checked', `removable', etc. should be
> recomputed if the program rewrites its image and is then restarted

Does it help to make them non-static? Is it ok to add variables to libc 
(with "_" prepended)?

> Copying comments into Texinfo requires some work ;-):
> 
>   This doesn't @emph{have} to be so, but if it's good enough for
>   Andrew Schulman et al (@cite{Undocumented DOS, 2nd edition}), we can
>   use this as well.)

Well I did my best. The problem is I don't know texinfo. I'll update as
described.


Right,

							MartinS

- Raw text -