Re: Re: A85: Re: DHOS: PXGray's Statement.

To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: Re: A85: Re: DHOS: PXGray's Statement.
From: DorkReMi@aol.com
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 00:34:31 EDT
Delivered-To: assembly-85-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Reply-To: assembly-85@lists.ticalc.org

In a message dated 8/14/98 4:20:31 AM, you wrote:

>> But, something i want to bring up, we shouldnt use TI's variable format.
>> Why do we need variables? we are going to need FILES!!
>
>I thought about this. We could do something like the "32 bit FAT"
>and make an extended VAT with a directory structure and long
>filenames and different var types and such. If we wanted to.

OK, perhaps this just dawned on me.  Call me a DUMBASS if I'm wrong.  Lemme
think about this:  Since in two bytes(16 bits) the max number is 65535, that
would NOT be enough to map out the expander2, but 32 bits WOULD!  Is that what
32 bit addressing is?  Or am I a dumbass? :p

-Josh Morris
 DorkReMi@aol.com

Prev: Re: A85: Re: DHOS: PXGray's Statement.
Next: Re: Re: A85: Re: DHOS: PXGray's Statement.
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread