From: Ullrich von Bassewitz (uz_at_musoftware.de)
Date: 2005-03-29 13:28:14
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 10:26:41AM +0200, fachat wrote:
> Currently I am more into option 2 (i.e. optional header), but I may be
> convinced otherwise.
In my eyes, the beauty of the o65 format is its simplicity, because this makes
very small loaders possible. I'm of course not the one to decide it, but I
would prefer a solution which keeps parsing as simple as possible. This would
rule out additional "optional header fields".
> Looking for comments.
Done:-)
Regards
Uz
--
Ullrich von Bassewitz uz@musoftware.de
Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing list
Archive generated by hypermail pre-2.1.8.