Re: A82: Re: Fw: Proposed open operating system/gui/shell (CalcOS-82,83,
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A82: Re: Fw: Proposed open operating system/gui/shell (CalcOS-82,83,85,86)
No, I mean install a predefined set that can not change- defined by the shell
author. Stuff like point on, dm_hl_deci, and grph_clr that are used in a few
programs already would be usefull. It would just kill the need to do a #include
"graph.inc", because they would already be on the calc. Point on is used by 2 or
more programs already, so just putting it in the shell would save space. I know
that this is not a true library, because you can't pick and choose, it would
make programs smaller than they currently are.
Dines Justesen wrote:
> >>I understand the pain of having 10 different library .82ps on your calc.
> >How
> >>about this: put the functions INSIDE the .82p of the shell (Example:
> >ash.82p has
> >>INSIDE of IT the point_on/off routines). That way, there is only one file
> >on the
> >>calculator, but the most common functions are inside that file. How about
> >it?
> >That would defeat the purpose. Then, you would have a bunch of routines
> >that programs don't use. What if the routines were stored differently? I
> >don't really see what the problem with the libraries is? Just the number
> of
> >prgm variables on the calculator???
>
> I would not mind having the extra variable on my calc, but as i have written
> before it has been tested an "normal" users of the shell does not like to
> have all those vars on the calc.
>
> It would be possible to include the libs in the shell variable without
> defeating the prupose of libraries. That would however require that you
> installed the libs in the shell before using them, and you would need a
> program to uninstall the lib again when you did not want them. This would be
> a bit more complicated than normal suport of libs, it would take up more
> space, and it would not solve the problems mentioned with libs.
>
> Dines
References: