Re: A89: Re: Survey for the next version of PlusShell

To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: A89: Re: Survey for the next version of PlusShell
From: EaglePrj@aol.com
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 17:18:15 EST
Delivered-To: assembly-89-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Reply-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org

In a message dated 11/15/98 1:56:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
nlmueller@students.wisc.edu writes:

> Yea,  I think we're taking this arguement to the level of Mac vs. PC here.
>  I like your idea of a standardised program info though.  I don't know what
>  people are doing now, but if you zip all necessary libraries with the
>  program, that would be easy to mannage too.  Of course, if we could just
>  keep libraries in their own folder (not in main) the libraries would be
>  easier to deal with.  Does anyone know how symbolic links work?
>  
>  	--Nate

I agree, I think it would be much easier to work with multiple libraries if we
put them all in a 'libs' folder.  But I don't like the idea of integrating
them into the shell, that forces the user to use specific shells.  What about
the idea of using libs when programming, but have the compiler integrate the
functions into the program when it is compiled?  That way the programmer uses
the libs on his computer, but there is no need for them on the calculator.

~Chirs

Prev: RE: A89: Re: Huffman
Next: A89: ROM calls
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread