Re: MS-DOS FST? => Resources

[vandry@CAM.ORG (Phillip Vandry)]

toddpw@cco.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes:

>Hey, who declared you king of programmers? Just because YOU don't see any
>good use for them doesn't mean that other people haven't found lots of great

OK. Tell me in what situation it would be good for a program to write
information to itself.

>>That's why I said it [OMF] would need to be optimized.

>Fat chance. OMF has already been upgraded once, and it does a pretty good
>job at what it does. Program chunks inherently need more context than do

You could have two sections in the OMF file: one with segments with lots of
headers, and another with shortewr headers (on the end, so it can change size
dynamically users a resource editor)

Or you could have the entire resource fork in a single load segment that
could be partially loaded by new calls to the system loader.

Or you could.... there are so many other ways of doing it. It really didn't
need to be hard coded into the file system like it was.

>>Any fd could now refer either to a data fork or to a resource fork. Every

>GS/OS already does that. Finder uses it to copy resource forks all the
>time. The "Open" call description in the GS/OS reference manual covers it.

Yeah, OK. But GS/OS had to be very much extended to be able to work with that.

>>I know. Believe me. I'm rewriting the Menu Manager.

>What the hell are you doing that for?? Mark Cecys did it too; it's partly
>why SynthLab never got anywhere.

So we can have a better Menu Manager. I could have done it with a patch
probably, but it would have had to be one hell of a patch (and ugly too)
 ______________________________________________________________________
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Phillip Vandry | Vandry@Cam.Org | Suicide (n.): What to do if Macs   |
|________________|________________|_______________take over the world__|
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~