Re: [MiNT] some gem question

[Olivier Landemarre <olivier.landemarre@utbm.fr>]

Frank Naumann wrote:

> Hello!
>
> > > No, Fsfirst/Fsnext are designed for 8+3 names only. It's not 
> > > possible at
> > > all to handle long filenames through Fsfirst/Fsnext. This is how ATARI
> > > defined these interfaces as TOS was introduced.
> >
> >
> > This is something I never understand! because d_fname is at the end 
> > of structure
> > and can easily extend for long filename.
>
>
> Theoretically this is possible.
>
> > Magic and Mint never extend this and I
> > not understand why,
>
>
> For good reasons. It's very dangerous to define a new semantic over an 
> existing well known interface. Especially the different structures 
> with the same name will make the (user program) source code very 
> complicated and error prone. You get all sorts of trouble if you 
> develop an app that runs under TOS and FreeMiNT/MagiC. It's much 
> cleaner and *much easier* to handle if you define a new interface.
Ok I see reasons (yours and Konrad have true). Just a question how 
maximum length is actually for path? Most of time I reserved 300 true or 
wrong I don't know, now supposing it is like this (probably not) and 
tommorrow you wan't extend this, do you wan't to had a new interface for 
this? I not think this, probably you will add a value for Pdomain(), 
this could be done too for Fsfirst(). Personaly I prefer Fsfirst() it's 
less Unix like of course but it's  more easy to use, or perhaps we could 
simply extend mintlib to do as if Fsfirst was like this, when long file 
name is avaible. Just my opinion, it's not very important.

Olivier