Marcel Kilgus writes: <> Im assuming that you were answering two different mails here. Forget the QPC 'hole' that got me going and lets look at path depth for SMSQ/E in general:
> Unfortunately directories have to be read "raw", meaning that the > format is limited to 36 characters. If one were to overcome this, one > would probably have to create a few new "real" directory traps. After > those are established and used in all the applications one could then > think about extending them to allow more characters. That would be one way forward, and I did have that in mind as a possibility. > But I can already hear the whining "but I can't adapt my application > to use the new traps as then it wouldn't be QDOS compatible anymore", > so I probably just don't bother. Not trying to discourage anybody > else, of course, it's just my view of things. There are a number of different defenses to this argument: 1) Ignor Qdos as such a DDD neednt apply to low-end devices such as floppies The recent questionnair should be able to answer the question: What percentage of QLers use both Qdos AND hard disks [HDD] (a small percentage I would think) Minerva and emulator users can upgrade the OS. Hardware Qdos users with HDD would have to migrate to new hardware - or stagnate. 2) We could use a method that could be added on, eg a) utility Things b) trap #3 (extendible even in Qdos) c) a new "System Services" trap, eg adopt trap #[5..15] d) Other ;) I could go on, but that would bore eveyone sick. Ive been pondering this question ever since I realised the full horror of the current implementation (back in '87 or therabouts). Per _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm