Re: A92: FileLIB functions
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: A92: FileLIB functions
Famille SCHERRER schrieb:
>
> Hello !
>
> I will make a library with a files & folders operations
> (create/delete/move/copy...)
>
> But I want to know WHICH posibility you prefer for the parameters...
> There is two possibility to pass them :
>
> * With the stack.
> So there is not destroyed registers (except the return value).
> But it can take more memory, and it is not always the more simple way.
>
> * With the registers.
>
> What do you prefer ???
I prefer the use of registers, as dealing with the stack always includes
thinking of the amount of parameters and their size, and it's faster. Registers
to save must be saved by the user, so he has got the task to carefully think
about usage.
> And for the parameters, I would also know your opinion about WHICH parameters
> would be the best :
>
> An example : the rename function.
> three possibilities :
> * Index of folder where is the file
> Index of file to rename
> New file name
>
> * Name of folder
> Name of file
> New file name
>
> * Index of folder
> Name of file
> New file name
>
> I think that the first is better. (there will be a find function, which
> return the index of the file/function defined by its name)
> It is the easier way for browsers, isn't it ?? And after with the find
> function you will be able to make the other possibilities.
I think the second is better because giving a pointer to the name is easier
than first giving the pointer to the name and then providing and storing the
handle(s).
> COULD YOU ANSWER ME PLEASE ???
> My e-mail address is p.c.scherrer@wanadoo.fr
>
> THANKS !
> Benoit SCHERRER
P.S. Do you really think that writing routines like yours is actually necessary
in view of and waiting for ti92+, as ti MUST provide all of these routines with
the ti92+?? I myself would keep my compressing routines in mind and perhaps
write them as subroutines for general usage without regard to fargo, which will
soon die out. A.K.
Follow-Ups:
References: