🚀 go-pugleaf

[for some reason, I just don't believe in email today...]

In article <555@shodha.dec.com> ridder@elvira.enet.dec.com (Hans Ridder) writes:
>Just one question.  What if Commodore adds some stuff to the Gadget
>structure making it larger?  You'd have to re-compile your code with
>new includes, or else their new larger Gadget structure would overlay
>your "extensions".  So really, the *binary* code could possibly not
>work with future releases.  No?

If Commodore changed the size of the Gadget structure, it would break
*every*single*program* which declares its own gadgets.  How many programs
have you seen with initialization expressions like

struct Gadget gidget = { gidget gadget stuff };

hmm?  If Commodore did change the size of the Gadget structure, they
would have to use one of the currently undefined flag bits to indicate
whether this was a fat or skinny gadget structure, and handle skinny
gadget structures like they used to.  Enclosing a gadget structure
inside a structure of your own adds no new constraints or potential
incompatibilities.

-Dan Riley (riley@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu, cornell!batcomputer!riley)
-Wilson Lab, Cornell University