Re: [ql-users] Future of QL - Part 1E121 (I had to increment it ! ;-)

2002-01-15 Thread Richard Zidlicky
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 05:16:25PM +0100, Wolfgang Lenerz wrote: > On 13 Jan 2002, at 19:22, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 06:45:05AM +0100, Thierry Godefroy wrote: > > > > > NOT AT ALL !!! This is perfectly documented: the documentation for the > > > IOSS (see the QDO

Re: [ql-users] Future of QL - Part 1E121 (I had to increment it ! ;-)

2002-01-15 Thread Wolfgang Lenerz
On 14 Jan 2002, at 19:24, P Witte wrote: > The actual words are: (QRM 6.4 10/08/95) > > "NOTE: A0 should not be amended by the open routine. D0 must be set to the > appropriate error code." (And my notes add: A6 should also be restored > before exit.) > > Which is the same as saying that A0 s

Re: [ql-users] Future of QL - Part 1E121 (I had to increment it ! ;-)

2002-01-14 Thread P Witte
Wolfgang Lenerz writes: > > > NOT AT ALL !!! This is perfectly documented: the documentation for the > > > IOSS (see the QDOS/SMS reference manual) DOES says that A0 must stay > > > unchanged or at least be restored if the device driver did not recognize > > > its own device in the name during

Re: [ql-users] Future of QL - Part 1E121 (I had to increment it ! ;-)

2002-01-14 Thread Wolfgang Lenerz
On 13 Jan 2002, at 19:22, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 06:45:05AM +0100, Thierry Godefroy wrote: > > > NOT AT ALL !!! This is perfectly documented: the documentation for the > > IOSS (see the QDOS/SMS reference manual) DOES says that A0 must stay > > unchanged or at least

Re: [ql-users] Future of QL - Part 1E121 (I had to increment it ! ;-)

2002-01-13 Thread Richard Zidlicky
On Fri, Jan 11, 2002 at 06:45:05AM +0100, Thierry Godefroy wrote: > NOT AT ALL !!! This is perfectly documented: the documentation for the > IOSS (see the QDOS/SMS reference manual) DOES says that A0 must stay > unchanged or at least be restored if the device driver did not recognize > its own

Re: [ql-users] Future of QL - Part 1E121 (I had to increment it ! ;-)

2002-01-11 Thread Phoebus R. Dokos
At 06:45 ðì 11/1/2002 +0100, you wrote: >On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:04:59 +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 10:00:33PM +0100, Thierry Godefroy wrote: > > > > > No criticism whatsoever however just to satisfy my curiosity and with my limited knowledge, isn't the method yo

Re: [ql-users] Future of QL - Part 1E121 (I had to increment it ! ;-)

2002-01-10 Thread Thierry Godefroy
On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 00:04:59 +0100, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 10:00:33PM +0100, Thierry Godefroy wrote: > > > I don't use the non-directory device driver IOT implement the CDROM device > > driver (which will indeed be a "legal" SMSQ/E directory device driver): I use > > a

Re: [ql-users] Future of QL - Part 1E121 (I had to increment it ! ;-)

2002-01-10 Thread Richard Zidlicky
On Thu, Jan 10, 2002 at 10:00:33PM +0100, Thierry Godefroy wrote: > > I don't use the non-directory device driver IOT implement the CDROM device > driver (which will indeed be a "legal" SMSQ/E directory device driver): I use > a FAKE non-directory device driver so to intercept the long filename,