On 13 Jan 2005 at 11:56, P Witte wrote: (...) (...) > No, extending the CDB was a hack, and not a pretty one either, but quite > servicable. My proposal is an extension of an existing facility, namely > stacking an additional parameter above the command line, where only > cognizant programs will know to look for it. The concept is widely used > throughout Qdos/SMSQE. The only hack involved would be to get QLib to find > it, and QLib is going to have to be hacked almost whatever solution is > chosen. >I hope not. Sbasic, Turbo & qlib progs will simply have new basic commands giving thm access to the home dir.
Something like your excellent homed$ proposal.... Wolfgang > > >> I don't see memory fragmentation as a problem. The memory block will > > >> start its life with the memory block for the job and will end its life > > >> along with it. No fragmentation really. > > > If you say so. You havent explained how you would set about it. > > > > Example: allocate the memory before the execution of the job with the > > job as the owner. It will get freed automatically on removal of the > > job. And how do you know that the memory is not valid anymore? Easy, > > the job-ID won't be valid anymore. > > The fragmentation I suggested would be due to the fact that whenever a job > dies there will be three holes in memory instead of just two. However, I > concede that this probably is insignificant. > > Per > > _______________________________________________ > QL-Users Mailing List > http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm > ---------------------------------------- www.scp-paulet-lenerz.com _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
