traps to an advanced directory system sounds good. Perhaps with a new 'CD' navigation
command. I suppose the old traps could be rewritten such that older software has
access to the new system to a path length of 36 characters. Does anyone know the history
of the 36 character limit. Was it a file name length limit set before directories came about?
Cheers Malcolm
P Witte wrote:
Not quite. Ive always lobbied for an advanced new file system. Im now prepared to accept something less ;)
The reason is order and sanity. Ive hit the path depth limit in trying to arrange things the way I need to have them, and I rarely use directory names of more than three of four letters. One letter is too limited.
_______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
