RE: A82: Re: Fw: Proposed open operating system/gui/shell (CalcOS-82,83,
RE: A82: Re: Fw: Proposed open operating system/gui/shell (CalcOS-82,83,85,86)
The problem is that the USER would have to install each library, and it isn't the most fun thing to do with one's free time. In fact, that was the most annoying thing about Usgard .95b, because I never knew what library I needed unless I installed the cool shell, but then I'd have to exit the shell, turn on my PC, hook up the link, and so on. It's a pain, and there aren't that many programs that need specific libraries to warrant that kind of setup.
From: Riley McArdle[SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Friday, October 17, 1997 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: A82: Re: Fw: Proposed open operating system/gui/shell (CalcOS-82,83,85,86)
<<File: Riley McArdle (Public).vcf>>
From: Matt Maurano <email@example.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
Date: Thursday, 16 October, 1997 15:52
Subject: Re: A82: Re: Fw: Proposed open operating system/gui/shell
>I understand the pain of having 10 different library .82ps on your calc.
>about this: put the functions INSIDE the .82p of the shell (Example:
>INSIDE of IT the point_on/off routines). That way, there is only one file
>calculator, but the most common functions are inside that file. How about
That would defeat the purpose. Then, you would have a bunch of routines
that programs don't use. What if the routines were stored differently? I
don't really see what the problem with the libraries is? Just the number of
prgm variables on the calculator???
- Could not process part with given Content-Type: