Re: Beta vs. Stable

X-Comment-To: Bart Oldeman

Hi!

8-Ноя-2002 20:26 [email protected] (Bart Oldeman) wrote to
[email protected]:

>> BO> * kernel - is missing in config.sys:
>> BO> (see http://fd-doc.sourceforge.net/spec/config.html)
>> BO> - buffers=nn[,n] - we have no secondary buffers
>>      This is _not_ required. You may simply ignore second argument similar
>> as MS-DOS ignores second argument of FCBS statement or assumes default
>> values for BUFFERS if wrong values given.
BO> The spec just says this:
BO> buffers
BO> Allocates memory for disk buffers during kernel startup.
BO> buffers=nn[,n]
BO> Options:
BO> nn is the number of buffers, in the range 1-99.
BO>   n is the number of secondary buffers, in the range 1-8.

     So what? I not propose breaking syntax, I only propose to make second
argument dummy. Unlike MS-DOS you implement FCBs through handlers and not
count such _internal difference_ as breaking compatability? So why you count
my proposal to reinterpret second argument internally as breaking
compatability?

>> BO> - fcbs - this one is stupid in the FreeDOS context; we simply don't need
>> BO> system FCBs for the FCB functions. It is parsed but ignored.
>>      So what the problem with this?
BO> That the spec doesn't describe the kernel behaviour.

     Why it should? Should be fixed _interface_, API: syntax, options,
arguments, format of input and output; may be mimiced assumed behavior;
_real_ implemenation should be black box.