[jbrown105 at jbrown.mylinuxbox.org: Re: DOS LFN support]
----- Forwarded message from "Jim C. Brown" <jbrown105 at jbrown.mylinuxbox.org>
-----
From: "Jim C. Brown" <jbrown105 at jbrown.mylinuxbox.org>
Subject: Re: DOS LFN support
On 0, Juergen Luethje <jluethje at gmx.de> wrote:
>
> jbrown105 wrote:
>
> > On 0, Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
> >> Juergen Luethje writes:
>
> <snip>
> >>> Together with J.Brown, I began to work at a cross-platform library for
> >>> directory and file operations some time ago. Unfortunately, it doesn't
> >>> make much progress at the moment, because I have little time, but it
> >>> shouldn't be too much work to extract the functions related to long
> >>> filenames, and rearrange them somewhat.
> >
> > Uhh ... didnt dos.e already do this?
>
> I would appreciate it very much, if in *all* Euphoria routines that deal
> with filenames, ex.exe uses long filenames, if they are supported by the
> OS. The code needed for this purpose is *not* contained in dos.e.
> Most of the code in dos.e add new functions to Euphoria (like mkdir(),
> rmdir(), copy(), ...) rather than improving existing functions.
>
Ah I see. I do believe our lib adds these as well, but on the other hand
this is not what you're trying to extract (from our lib).
> (I assume Rob knows dos.e well. If dos.e would solve the problem, Rob
> would already have moved it's code into the interpreter, I suppose.)
>
> And dos.e is buggy. Just an example: When a DOS program deals with long
> filenames, the most basic thing is to detect, wether the OS on which the
> program currently is running, does support long filenames or doesn't do
> so. Do detect this, dos.e uses "surrogate markers", which are not too
> reliable. Using this method, a program wouldn't have long filename
> support on Win XP. 
> To look wether LFN are supported by the OS, my code calls the appropriate
> DOS interrupt function instead, which is much more reliable.
>
Ah I see. Just curious, what is a "surrogate marker" ?
> > In fact, Juergen, didnt you get most of the dos code FROM dos.e?
>
> No. When I saw some bugs in dos.e, I reported them to this list. Then
> Derek wrote something like: "Interesting, but who uses DOS nowadays?".
> That was how I got the idea, not just to correct dos.e, but to create a
> cross-platform library for file and directory operations. You know that,
> of course.
> So the first thing I got from dos.e -- and from Derek 
-- was a
> (hopefully) good idea. Then I got more ideas from dos.e, but I already
> had detected, that the code wasn't reliable. I found a very good
> documentation on the net about DOS and LFN [1]. But mainly I used Ralph
> Brown's interrupt list, what to the best of my knowledge is the "gold
> standard" is this field.
> (There are situations, were I like "wearing a belt *and* braces"
In that case, your work on the lib becomes even more impressive.
>
> > Not to say that our lib isn't useful (personally I think it should be
> > part of the standard includes,
>
> I also think so. Well, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
>
> > but then again thats just my opinion) but that wouldnt it be easier
> > to get dos.e from the archives than to extract the DOS-only code from
> > file2.e? (I wouldn't know, I've mostly done the Unix-only part of the
> > programming on it.)
>
> I'm already finished extracting the DOS code related to long filenames
> from file2.e. I also made some tests on my neighbour's PC (Win 2000).
>
Oh! Excellent!
> > About file2.e: I'm working on some more Linux improvements, I'll give
> > Juergen a copy in a few days perhaps.
> <snip>
>
> You're welcome! Just please be patient with me, because my lack of time.
>
> > jbrown
>
> Regards,
> Juergen
>
> --------
> [1] http://lab1.de/prod/lfn/lfn.htm (sorry, it's in German only)
>
Doesnt Altavista have an option to translate web pages in other languages?
(Called Babel Fish, I think...)
----- End forwarded message -----
Linux User:190064
Linux Machine:84163
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
