On 16 Sep 2002, at 20:08, P Witte wrote:
> Surely this wont be needed in the future? Cant the files just be zipped up > without the dev8_ bit? They can if you do the zipping from inside the "QL" > (or use an otherwise blank partition on the PC). > OOps, sorry, I expressed myself unclearly - the reference are those INSIDE the files, eg. "include win1_ whatever". Sure,a s of now they can be zipped properly - or even more simply distributed as a qxl.win file. For those without access to qxl.win files on a CD, notably Q40/Q60 users, they could use Thierry's CD drivers together with, for example, qxlwin_exe (plug, plug). > win1_iod_bim_dddb_keys ? OK, I'll add that to the list, thanks. > There are also a number of supernumary files but perhaps that doesnt > matter.. Yes, there also seem the be Better too much than not enough :-))) > Interested: yes! Able: depends. Time: in fits and bursts! Well, I don't ask for more! > <> > >Please let me have your ideas. > > 1) Some solution that addresses the filename length & seperators issue! > (Build on current or devise new, with backward compatibility) Umph, going right for the jugular, aren't we? > 2) New job header definition to fit the name of the directory from > which program was launched. (And modification of calling procedures > (EX and all that)) That actually tallies a bit with the first wish, since right now it will be difficult to distinguish between dirs and filenames: which part of "win1_iod_bim_dddb_keys" is the dirname, and which part is the filename? > 3) A series of standard tests for platform/system-related facilities across > the board. (Dummy toolkits for older systems in the intersts of universal > compatibility.) You mean 'is this facility present' ? Or 'is this hardware present' or both? (probably!) (cut) Wolfgang
