Marcel Kilgus writes: > Just an unrelated note to the DOS long-filename-hack: They had to do > this because a single file name was limited to only 8 characters. We > have 36 characters to work with, which is much less of a burden. So I > don't see the need for something similar.
But they had a greater directory depth, I seem to recall. <> Per _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
