1. non-32 dos?
(for Rob Craig)
If your compiler has a PC-XT output option, would it be possible
to have a Dos-16 version of euphoria?
I would like to have it on my HP200LX which has a 80186
compatible CPU, with ms-dos 5.0. Of course it would be a
restricted version, but even with the limitations, it'll be great to
use euphoria's language on small platforms.
Riwal Raude
rauder at thmulti.com
2. Re: non-32 dos?
Riwal Raude writes:
> (for Rob Craig)
> If your compiler has a PC-XT output option, would it be possible
> to have a Dos-16 version of euphoria?
My C compiler has an option for 16-bit code, but
I have no intention of producing a 16-bit, 640k-limited
version of Euphoria. There would be too many problems
to iron out, too much testing and documenting, and too few
people interested in it.
I'd rather spend my time porting to Linux.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://members.aol.com/FilesEu/
3. Re: non-32 dos?
Raude Riwal <rauder at THMULTI.COM> wrote:
>(for Rob Craig)
>If your compiler has a PC-XT output option, would it be possible
> to have a Dos-16 version of euphoria?
>I would like to have it on my HP200LX which has a 80186
>compatible CPU, with ms-dos 5.0. Of course it would be a
>restricted version, but even with the limitations, it'll be great to
>use euphoria's language on small platforms.
Perhaps you could make use of an old v1.x copy of Euphoria instead. Here's
one place where v1.5 is still available to download:
Of course, this isn't a registered edition of the v1.5 Euphoria interpreter,
it won't have all the latest and greatest features, and it probably won't be
supported by RDS. But at least you'll be able to do *something* with
Euphoria in a 16-bit environment. Many of the DOS-related language features
are the same as in the 2.x versions of Euphoria, and you can always check
LIBRARY.DOC or REFMAN.DOC to be sure.
I hope this is helpful.
Gabriel Boehme
4. Re: non-32 dos?
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at ATTCANADA.NET>
Mar 03, 1999
-
Last edited Mar 04, 1999
Gabriel Boehme writes:
> Perhaps you could make use of an old v1.x copy of Euphoria instead.
Every version of Euphoria going right back to v1.0 requires
a 386 (sx or dx) or higher, and runs in 32-bit protected mode.
When v2.0 came out we started using the terms "DOS32"
and "WIN32", but there was no fundamental difference
between ex.exe for 1.5 and ex.exe for 2.0, other than some
extra built-in routines, a few bug fixes, optimizations etc.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://members.aol.com/FilesEu/
5. Re: non-32 dos?
I was thinking of a typical limited "trial" version, of course without any
warranty. I spend much time in trains and I like to use it to try some
programs. Sorry that it's not possible. Well I suppose that I should
try to do it myself... I'm so lazy...
Riwal Raude
rauder at thmulti.com
----------
From: Robert Craig
To: EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU
Subject: Re: non-32 dos?
Date: Thursday 4 March 1999 01:29
Gabriel Boehme writes:
> Perhaps you could make use of an old v1.x copy of Euphoria instead.
Every version of Euphoria going right back to v1.0 requires
a 386 (sx or dx) or higher, and runs in 32-bit protected mode.
When v2.0 came out we started using the terms "DOS32"
and "WIN32", but there was no fundamental difference
between ex.exe for 1.5 and ex.exe for 2.0, other than some
extra built-in routines, a few bug fixes, optimizations etc.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://members.aol.com/FilesEu/
