Petri wrote:
>Yes, I know this. Actually, this is the point - when you need LFNs, you
>make another wwwman, and thus the original wwwman can be 8086 compatible.
>
>(I consider wwwman part of Arachne, not because it is, but it's included
>in a very integrated way in the package.)
That may be, but why call it via DGI instead of the current way?
>That way one doesn't need to change the wheel, just copy and modify
>it. Then we havetwo wheels, one 8086 without LFN and one 386 one with
>LFN. In this case, people needing LFNs can use them without disturbing
>Arachne functionality, or slowing it down etc.
I still don't get it. Let me see if I understand you want:
1. A normal version
2. A LFN version
Then can you please explain to me why you can't call them *both* wwwman.exe
and use the one that fits your needs. By doing so any changes to the normal
one would also show up in the LFN version. Splitting the LFN version from
the "development tree" sounds rather weird IMO. Having a programcode look
in two ways (for the compiler) isn't all that hard all we need is to use
#define.
BTW: Petri why don't you like fast internet connections? (your X-Sender
tells me so: "X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" - I do not think I'll
translate the meaning here of the swedish word "luder", "bredband" is
"broadband" anyway)
//Bernie
http://hem1.passagen.se/bernie/index.htm DOS programs, Star Wars ...
