P Witte wrote: >> Even though it is my idea this probably needs more thinking. The >> device I proposed is probably not the way to go, instead perhaps the >> OPEN routine would need to be changed to automatically make use of the >> "current directory", otherwise it's probably somewhat pointless. BUT >> if this were so, relative path-names would have to be introduced, too. >> I mean things like ".." and "\" (root directory) of DOS. > Yes!!
Ok, so at least one likes my idea :-) > <> >> Shouldn't we just decide on a "suggested value" now instead of making >> it dynamic (things like configuration options can't be dynamic >> anyway)? Windows has a max path length of 260 characters for example >> (UNC names can actually be longer, but hardly anybody uses them for >> local files). > As long as it is a "reasonable" limit. Sure. What's reasonable for you? >> > As usual, relatively few people have commented on this... >> Which sometimes can be a good thing ;-) > I heard that! ;) That's ok, wasn't about you anyway ;) Marcel _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
