Re: What was it layers were for again ?

On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 09:21:21PM +0000, Nick Ing-Simmons wrote:
> Bart Schuller <schuller@lunatech.com> writes:
> >I'd love to hear from people/programs who actually use this "feature".

> CP/M did not store the file length in the directory just a sector count. 
> The ^Z allowed you to have files which were not a multiple of sector size. 
> DOS (even with 12-bit FAT) has always allowed binary files on floppies.

Aah. So CP/M would be one of systems taking advantage of ANSI C saying
that the system is allowed to pad a binary file with arbitrary trailing zero
bytes, in this case to take it up to the end of the sector.

Fun. Fun. Yes. Really. 

Nicholas Clark

• What was it layers were for again ? by Nick Ing-Simmons
• RE: What was it layers were for again ? by Horsley Tom
• RE: What was it layers were for again ? by Moore, Paul
• Re: What was it layers were for again ? by Gisle Aas
• Re: What was it layers were for again ? by Nick Ing-Simmons
• Re: What was it layers were for again ? by Jarkko Hietaniemi
• Re: What was it layers were for again ? by Gisle Aas
• Re: What was it layers were for again ? by Jarkko Hietaniemi
• Re: What was it layers were for again ? by Bart Schuller
• Re: What was it layers were for again ? by Nick Ing-Simmons
• Re: What was it layers were for again ? by Nicholas Clark
• Re: What was it layers were for again ? by Dan Sugalski
• Re: What was it layers were for again ? by Jarkko Hietaniemi
• Re: What was it layers were for again ? by Nick Ing-Simmons
• Re: What was it layers were for again ? by Simon Cozens