Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.msdos.programmer > #3997
| From | "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.msdos.programmer |
| Subject | Re: extending parameters |
| Date | 2021-05-01 22:59 +0200 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <s6kfgc$9ko$2@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (8 earlier) <c13ece80-33f2-4ab5-bcb7-c68120339391n@googlegroups.com> <d2snh6xuzu23$.1cfkbxt6yxhk4.dlg@40tude.net> <d2dba42b-d2bb-42d7-8bdd-9f433eefc4fan@googlegroups.com> <s6jrdc$16bi$1@gioia.aioe.org> <515364ed-e0cc-420c-be8d-61a40c8e1dbcn@googlegroups.com> |
Muta,
> Hi Rudy. Are you going to answer my question about
> the technical barrier to ctrl-c checking for programs
> that loop without doing output? I'd really like to know
> that.
Done.
>> > Once again, an additional field in the parameter
>> > block would require all 3 components (caller, OS
>> > and called)
>
>> Why do you think so ?
>
> For the same reason I gave before?
No, not who should be aware of that extra field, but why that extra field is
needed in the first place.
> So both caller and called require two techniques
> instead of one, and the OS indeed can have 0 or 1.
Required ? No. A good idea to have them both *if* you want to have your
program to also run on DOSes which do not support the extended command-tail
? Yes.
Did I already mention that I regard the CMDLINE method to be an hack (and an
ugly one to boot) ? And have you ever thought about how clumsy changing
the environment and retrieving from it is for a to-be-executed program is in
a plain DOS version ?
Than again, most of that is hidden from you by the C{something} environment
you're programming in ...
>> As long as you're busy upgrading stuff, do consider changing 2109 to a
>> zero-terminated string too.
>
> Currently I can go:
>
> PosDisplayString("Hello$");
>
> and it will work on both 16-bit and 32-bit MSDOS.
Yeah, it does. You know what /won't/ work ? Displaying the current, or
your proposed extended command-tail that way.
But lets put it differently : you're introducing a /third/ string form. Why
? And of you think that a zero-terminated string works better than why not
update that ancient '$' ended string too ? Better yet, change all three to
the same, zero-terminated form.
Than again, if you would do that you would lose compatibility with all of
the other DOSes ... so maybe don't.
> More code to achieve what?
Nope, less code. One set of functions that will handle the single string
form, instead of having three different ones. Also, no permutations needed
to combine/append one string form with/to another.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
Back to comp.os.msdos.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
extending parameters "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-04-27 01:35 -0700
Re: extending parameters JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> - 2021-04-27 18:21 +0700
Re: extending parameters "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-04-27 05:52 -0700
Re: extending parameters JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> - 2021-04-28 13:18 +0700
Re: extending parameters "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-04-28 01:05 -0700
Re: extending parameters JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> - 2021-04-29 17:07 +0700
Re: extending parameters "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-04-29 08:38 -0700
Re: extending parameters JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> - 2021-04-30 16:56 +0700
Re: extending parameters "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-04-30 05:34 -0700
Re: extending parameters JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> - 2021-05-01 18:18 +0700
Re: extending parameters "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-05-01 06:41 -0700
Re: extending parameters "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2021-05-01 17:16 +0200
Re: extending parameters "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2021-05-01 18:12 +0200
Re: extending parameters "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-05-01 11:28 -0700
Re: extending parameters "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2021-05-01 22:59 +0200
Re: extending parameters "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-05-01 14:53 -0700
Re: extending parameters "R.Wieser" <address@not.available> - 2021-05-02 11:52 +0200
Re: extending parameters "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-05-02 06:57 -0700
Re: extending parameters JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> - 2021-05-02 18:55 +0700
Re: extending parameters "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-05-02 06:46 -0700
Re: extending parameters JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> - 2021-05-03 22:45 +0700
Re: extending parameters "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-05-03 09:11 -0700
Re: extending parameters JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> - 2021-05-04 18:48 +0700
Re: extending parameters "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-05-04 08:39 -0700
Re: extending parameters JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> - 2021-05-05 17:05 +0700
Re: extending parameters "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-05-05 04:52 -0700
Re: extending parameters JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> - 2021-05-06 17:58 +0700
Re: extending parameters "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-05-06 09:12 -0700
Re: extending parameters JJ <jj4public@gmail.com> - 2021-05-07 19:35 +0700
Re: extending parameters "muta...@gmail.com" <mutazilah@gmail.com> - 2021-05-07 06:11 -0700
Re: extending parameters "Alexei A. Frounze" <alexfrunews@gmail.com> - 2021-04-27 05:09 -0700
csiph-web