On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 at 23:01:38, Robert Newson wrote:
(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>>> Anyone care to hazard a guess as to which is right? Anyway,
>>> pin 5 won't have a signal if QL World is right.
>> QL Manual 12/84 concepts is the right one - which I assume was the
>>one quoted from QLW (s
Tony Firshman wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 at 11:01:02, Alan Tyson wrote:
> (ref: <001101c227f9$107a84c0$fb30883e@alantyso>)
>
>>
>>> This can be dangerous, not only to him, but to the monitor
>>
>> & QL - he could
>>
>>> end up frying either or both of them.
>>>
>> Thanks for the warning.
Perhaps he used pkunzip or a unix zip to zip them up.
The QL unzip will probably unzip files made up with these implementations of
zip.
- Original Message -
From: "Norman Dunbar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: [ql-users] SMS
In a message dated 10/07/02 16:19:28 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I believe that George has made the source code for GWASS available. (At
least I think so)
If so, maybe someone would like to take on the task of rewriting it to only
use 68000 instructions.
:o)
Good point!!
G
In a message dated 10/07/02 15:01:10 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How much of an effort would it be to change GWASS itself to run on a 68000 or 68008 based QL??
Far too much I'm afraid!
GWASL, which is an amended version of the assembler written originally for the 68000/8 inst
At 08:01 AM 7/10/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>On 9 Jul 2002, at 12:31, Timothy Swenson wrote:
>
> >
> > A
> > Actually, I would probably work better if Jochen took the SMSQ/E
> > source code, added the commercial programs to the CD and sold it.
>(...)
>No, he certainly can't sell the source code!
>He
I believe that George has made the source code for GWASS available. (At
least I think so)
If so, maybe someone would like to take on the task of rewriting it to only
use 68000 instructions.
:o)
Regards,
Norman.
-
Norman Dunbar
Database/Unix administrator
L
On 10/07/02 at 09:58 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>George - I think that you are missing the point here.
>...
>However, the fact remains that a lot of SMSQ/E developers use
>computers/emulators which do not support 68020+ and therefore cannot run
>GWASS to write the code...
>How much of an effort
In a message dated 10/07/02 13:38:58 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not convinced How difficult would it be George, to allow GWASS to work on the 68000 chipset??
GWASS needs a 68020+ to operate. But it can produce code siutable for 68000/8 (ie the basic instruction se
In a message dated 10/07/02 07:04:04 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Facetiousness put aside, I'm pretty sure that we'll be able to find a
modus vivendi that will allow us to move forward. If things really
needing a 68020+ instruction set really come out, there is always a
possibi
In a message dated 10/07/02 07:04:00 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Anyway, what is so bad with a set of GWASS-type macros to replace the
> Qmac ones provided the USER of these macros can code them in almost
> exactly the same way as for Qmac?
Simple: you have to change much of t
In a message dated 09/07/02 21:00:37 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am not convinced How difficult would it be George, to allow GWASS to work on the 68000 chipset??
GWASS needs a 68020+ to operate. But it can produce code siutable for 68000/8 (ie the basic instruction set)
> Pity...
> Who is the copyright owner for eglish versions? Can he be
> approached?
Don't know exactly what the situation is, will speak to Tony about it
...
but don't want to bother him now 'cause I am still waiting for
other stuff he was going to send to me.
> > Even selling just JMON on is o
>Let's try to be reasonable here. Up until now, development of the
>sources - ALL OF THEM - was done with the system as described
>in the style guide. In my mind, it is essential that, at least for the
>time being, we keep that system: if we change tools and sources
>at the same time, the com
On 10 Jul 2002, at 10:22, Jochen Merz wrote:
> > And anyway, can't you sell a German Qmon with an english
> > manual?
> Uh, it's not the binary version which makes the difference, it's the
> manual :-(
Pity...
Who is the copyright owner for eglish versions? Can he be
approached?
> Even selli
On Wed, 10 Jul 2002 at 11:01:02, Alan Tyson wrote:
(ref: <001101c227f9$107a84c0$fb30883e@alantyso>)
>
>> This can be dangerous, not only to him, but to the monitor
>& QL - he could
>> end up frying either or both of them.
>>
>Thanks for the warning. He's pretty clued up as an Elec.Eng.
>lecture
> This can be dangerous, not only to him, but to the monitor
& QL - he could
> end up frying either or both of them.
>
Thanks for the warning. He's pretty clued up as an Elec.Eng.
lecturer by trade, and his house has had live TV & radio
chassis lying around more time than not over the years.
[On
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 at 21:11:28, Robert Newson wrote:
(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
>Tony Firshman wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 at 03:30:56, Alan Tyson wrote:
>> (ref: <001b01c226f0$a81a5620$3a51883e@alantyso>)
>>
>>>My 86-yr-old father in S.Wales (I'm near Chester) acquired a
>>>s/h QL about
Hi Wolfgang,
> See my other email. It is possible., but you would be distributing
> an unofficial version.
Exactly.
> > I am so glad that QMAKE is not essential for assembling SMSQ/E's
> > sources. It sure helps a lot to have it, makes it fast and convenient,
> > and you may have to re-write t
Dave,
I was sort of being facetious at the time, but forgot my smiley. I suppose
that's what you (I) get for trying to be funny - I should leave it to the
professionals in future.
Cheers,
Norman.
-
Norman Dunbar
Database/Unix administrator
Lynx Financial Sy
20 matches
Mail list logo
