On Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Spiro Trikaliotis wrote: > Hello, > > * On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 04:07:47AM +0000 William Levak wrote: >> On Fri, 12 Apr 2013, silverdr@wfmh.org.pl wrote: > >>>> "0:?*" is only necessary if you got a file not found error, where the next load may try to load from the nonexistant drive 1. >>> >>> Wouldn't in such case a "0:*" still be sufficient? >> >> Since you have previously referenced a file, * now means last file >> referenced. > > *sigh* > > Have you actually tested this? > > Yes, you are right "*" references the last file. However, silverdr told > you to use "0:*", which does NOT reference the last accessed file, but > the first file on drive 0. > > We tried to explain this to you more than once. You missed the part about the nonexistent drive 1. Sometimes when you get a "file not found error" the drive tries to search for it on drive 1. I don't know how to produce this error other then explicitly attempting to load from drive 1. When I do this, "*" mostly returns the that loaded correctly. Once it loaded a totally unrelated file. wlevak@sdf.lonestar.org SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2013-04-15 02:00:03
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.