AW: AW: [MiNT] drive letters (was: Kernal questions)

["Julian Reschke" <Reschke@medicaldataservice.de>]

> > No. What's the point of this? Why would the type of the application
> > make any difference about how ti access files?
> 
> Because in UNIX, we deal with paths from a unified filesystem (ie: from
> the root, using / as separators), not drive letters.
> 
> However, GEM apps expect a DOS pathname, which uses drive letters and
> backslashes as separators.

What type of file names an application "expects" has nothing to do with
whether it uses GEM or not. We have a clear definition about what a valid
filename is, and what it means, and all programs need to support that.

> > I would like to see a clear description of the (perceived?) problem
> > with the current way MiNT works, and *then* we can discuss how to
> > fix that.
> 
> The main gripe I have with the current way is that my U: drive is
> cluttered with one-letter symbolic links to the drive names.  When
> working from CLI, I want those _NOT_ to appear on /, since I don't 
> need them there;  I only need them within GEM.

Then it would probably a better idea to make them hidden directory
entries. This wouldn't break anything.

jr