Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.msdos.programmer > #4002

Re: extending parameters

Show all headers | View raw

Muta,

> I think we need to distinguish between:
>
> 1. How MSDOS would ideally have been written starting with version 1.0.
...
> 3. What alternative could have been chosen knowing the
> "mistakes" of 1.0 and before the 7.0 solution has been
> set in stone.

No, definitily not.  I have no wish to talk that way about stuff I cannot 
alter.  Also, it would be bashing those thanwhile choices with our current 
knowledge.  Thats simply not fair.   Also, in your case its would be tainted 
with what you think your own OS should be capable of / looking like.

> 2. How to maintain compatibility with the CMDLINE
> solution introduced in MSDOS 7.0.

Can you come up with a way to make a program incompatible with it ?    If 
not than that requirement is moot.

> Sure. This is not the function for that.  There isn't any
> choice but to use an alternative. Is that a problem?

Lol.   *you* are introducing a new sting type, and than claim you have no 
choice to use another function ?    What about *NOT* introducing a new 
string type ?

> Because the '\r' is useless either way and needs
> to be removed.

The same goes for that '$' terminating a string.    Your point ?

But as I already mentioned, such a change (for either or both of the above 
strings) would have dire consequences. Which might easily be prohibitonary.

> There's no need for the CMDLINE kludge either in
> the 32-bit version.

Thanks.  That means I can just ignore any references you make to the 32-bit 
version.

> If we (as I do) theorize that Microsoft had created
> a nice C API like the Pos* functions, instead of only
> providing an assembler interface, what would that
> API actually look like?

Nope, not going to engage in that.   For several reasons.

One question though : whats, according to you, the difference between the 
above "C API" and "assembler interface" ?

> I guess we need to ask what a sensible objective is in
> the first place. I just have a vague idea of "32-bit MSDOS".

And as that one, as you have just mentioned yourself, doesn't need the 
CMDLINE kludge it means that our current conversation is a waste of our 
time. :-(

> I am not providing an API to print a NUL-terminated
> string.

Which makes the problem bigger.    Introducing something new, but not adding 
support for it.

> I'm just setting rules for INT 21H 4BH.

And I've mentioned (and explained!) to you that changes to support an 
extended command-tail are not needed .   If you think otherwise I would like 
to hear why.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Back to comp.os.msdos.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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