Message-ID:	<GR11jeArHxBzEwM3@darkblak.demon.co.uk>
Date:	Sun, 16 Feb 1997 13:55:55 +0000
To:	opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
From:	"Ian 'DrDebug' Day" <Ian AT darkblak DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
Subject:	Re: [opendos] BAD Filesystems
In-Reply-To:	<14795.9702152115@pulteney.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Sender:	owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net

In article <14795 DOT 9702152115 AT pulteney DOT dcs DOT st-andrews DOT ac DOT uk>, dg AT dcs DOT st-
and.ac.uk writes
>There's a limit in DOS of 128 characters for the command line, after all 
>environment variables have been expanded (this is the PATH limitation problem). 
>I think this is because there's a fixed-size buffer. While it would be 
>relatively trivial to add line continuation support, there wouldn't be a lot of 
>point as anything longer than a line and a half wouldn't work.
>
>I don't know how easy it would be to make the buffer longer --- how many 
>command-line editing TSR's modify the buffer directly? Changing the size or 
>position would confuse them horribly.

I've been using 4DOS with DOS apps for years it allows command lines of
upto 256 characters.  It simply only gives 126 to the application.  It's
still useful to allow more (which are use for long filenames, internal
commands etc.)

-- 
DrDebug

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian 'DrDebug' Day         | Email:           Ian AT darkblak DOT demon DOT co DOT uk
Dark Black Software Ltd.  | WWW:      http://www.darkblak.demon.co.uk
The Home of MrDebug       | Dark Knight BBS & Fax: +44 (0)1480 471465
(THE Clipper debugger)    | Tel:                   +44 (0)1480 403104
---------------------------------------------------------------------

- Raw text -