Date:	Sat, 1 Mar 1997 15:32:43 -0500 (EST)
From:	Paul W Brannan <brannanp AT musc DOT edu>
To:	Benjamin D Chambers <chambersb AT juno DOT com>
cc:	opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Subject:	Re: [opendos] [OpenDOS] Wishlist part 2
In-Reply-To:	<19970301.095133.4935.0.chambersb@juno.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.ULT.3.95.970301153031.11044A-100000@atrium.musc.edu>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Sender:	owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net

> I'm not sure what you mean here.  If all programs are required to use
> sfn's, what would be the point of implementing lfn's?
> Also, having 'transparant' to the programmer like this would only work
> for compilers that we can modify to make do so - in other words, no
> Borland, no M$, etc.  Admittedly, I wouldn't touch their compilers
> anyways, but someone else might.  What happens then?
> 
> ...Chambers
> 

What I mean is that the program would "lookup" the sfn version of the lfn.
So you could display the lfn on the screen, and then when you go to open
the file you have to use the sfn.  A routine called lfn_open could be
created that handles this for you.  And the library could be ported to
multiple compilers.

Paul

- Raw text -