Message-ID: <xgIo$BAf3ABzEwY7@darkblak.demon.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 07:01:51 +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: <Pine.GSO.3.95.970213180202.16043H-100000@sparkie.gnofn.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-opendos AT mail DOT tacoma DOT net
Precedence: bulk

In article <Pine DOT GSO DOT 3 DOT 95 DOT 970213180202 DOT 16043H-100000 AT sparkie DOT gnofn DOT org>,
"Colin W. Glenn" <cwg01 AT gnofn DOT org> writes
>> > This sounds great!  Add it to the wishlists.  On the fly DLL's in
>> > DOS sounds great!  Just as long as they don't work like Windows
>> > DLL's and don't reside in the DOS directory.  (ie: C:\LIB or
>> > C:\SHARED would be prime candidates).
>
>We could call them something else, call them DLD, Dynamicly Loaded Driver.

Or not!  :)

And I agree with (whoever it was) that the program's DLLs should be in
the same (or related) directory to the program.  It may be best to
automatically add the callers' execution path to the front of the DLL
directory search list.

-- 
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------