Re: A89: Survey for the next version of PlusShell

Re: A89: Survey for the next version of PlusShell

• To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
• Subject: Re: A89: Survey for the next version of PlusShell
• From: Jimmy =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5rdell?= <yarin@acc.umu.se>
• Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:21:46 +0100
• Delivered-To: assembly-89-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
• In-Reply-To: <005801be0db6$5a4f2da0$ee702299@rwagner>
• Reply-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org

At 16:00 1998-11-11 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Should the next version of PlusShell default to outputting assembly programs
>which require no kernel or libraries?

Here are my thoughts about this issue:

* Programs should NOT require any shell as default
* Program not requiring a shell should still be able to use
  the functions in the library. When compiling, the functions in
  the library should then be added at the end of the source code
  (this might cause complications if library functions calls each other)
* An Anti-crash system should be a separate program. I remember that
  there was such a program for Fargo, which was run separately.

Conclusion: programs could be release in two version; one which requires
a shell & libraries, and the other have the function used statically
included. When compiling, a switch could decide which of the version
is to be compiled.

--
Real name:     Jimmy Mårdell         
Email:         mailto:yarin@acc.umu.se
Homepage:      http://www.acc.umu.se/~yarin/

Icarus Productions homepage: http://icarus.ganymed.org/

• Re: A89: Survey for the next version of PlusShell
• From: Xavier VASSOR - The Doors Team <doors@altern.org>

• A89: Survey for the next version of PlusShell
• From: "Rusty Wagner" <river@gte.net>

• Prev: Re: A89: Survey for the next version of PlusShell
• Next: Re: A89: Survey for the next version of PlusShell
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread