Date:	Wed, 19 Mar 1997 04:50:59 -0500 (EST)
From:	"Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
Reply-To:	"Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
To:	evand AT scn DOT org
cc:	OpenDOS Mailing List <opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net>
Subject:	Re: [opendos] Wishlist v2.0
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.OSF.3.95.970315114432.23745B-100000@unicorn.it.wsu.edu>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.3.95.970319044913.12128F-100000@capslock.com>
Organization:	Total disorganization.
MIME-Version:	1.0

On Sat, 15 Mar 1997, Evan Dickinson wrote:

> > I'm afraid it's safe to say that there aren't going to be many new programs 
> > written specifically for OpenDOS. I think that most programs are going to be 
> > either old MS-DOS ones or new MS-DOS ones. Neither are going to abide by a 
> > OpenDOS file system standard.
> A truth we should remember when discussing new standards.

Yes, but it would prevent future mayhem.

> > This would avoid problems like my UTILS directory being so big that I can't 
> > see it all on the screen at once. Perhaps a feature to search a directory *and 
> > subdirectories* on the path? How complex would that be?
> > 
> Well, we could put wildcards in the path.  So we'd have something like:
> path=c:\utils\*;c:\system\*;c:\opendos
[SNIP] 
> But I would prefer to see a more elegant solution.  Ideas anyone?

PATH=*:\*

That way no matter where an executable is, it can be executed.
Mind you, it would be SLOW!!!!!!!
:o)

Mike A. Harris        |             http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant   |                  Coming soon: dynamic-IP-freedom...
My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
mailto:mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca

- Raw text -