Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!forty2!poole
From: poole@forty2.UUCP (Simon Poole)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: New Mark Williams C
Message-ID: <154@forty2.UUCP>
Date: 22 Feb 88 11:32:32 GMT
References: <1022@uop.edu> <328@bnl.ARPA> <2337@chinet.UUCP> <3160@cup.portal.com> <1481@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <889@rmi.UUCP> <346@coma.UUCP>
Reply-To: poole@forty2.UUCP (Simon Poole)
Organization: Exp. Physics University Zuerich
Lines: 29

In article <346@coma.UUCP> axel@coma.UUCP (Axel Mahler) writes:
>In article <889@rmi.UUCP> gsender@rmi.UUCP (Gerd Sender) writes:
>... bla ...
>>
>>I prefer the usage of a RSC file. It is easier and safer.
>>I see no advantage if I include the RSC file into the program.
>
>No benefits ?! It's a major nuisance to always think of moving those
>f&*%ing resource-files around together with the programs. Separate
>resource files are also a violation of GEM's idea of (well, kind of)
>'object oriented-ness'. It's, for instance, not possible to open files
>of a given type with some (application-) program if the resource file
>for that program happens to reside in any other but the current
>directory.
>
Axel, sorry but that's not true (I've mentioned this before...),
rsrc_load uses the GEMDOS search path to find .rsc files. So I've
got gemboot to set the path to something like:
PATH=;C:\;D:\;E:\;D:\UTILITIE.S\;
if I'm currently in C:\ASSEMBL.ER and double click a .s file, I can
have a application start up which is anywhere in the search path and 
it WILL find it's .rsc file.
Another advantage of .rsc files, is that they can (in theory) be translated
to another language, without recompiling the program.


                        Simon Poole
			BITNET: K538915@CZHRZU1A
			UUCP: ...mcvax!cernvax!forty2!poole