Docstrings considered too complicated

Albert van der Horst albert at
Fri Mar 12 02:49:47 CET 2010

In article <hmlvas$2a6$1 at>,
Grant Edwards  <invalid at invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 2010-03-03, Grant Edwards <invalid at invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2010-03-03, Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing at> wrote:
>>> Grant Edwards wrote:
>>>> Just a mediocre copy of the CP/M filesystem, which was in turn
>>>> copied from DEC's RSTS or RSX.
>>> It was actually an improvement over CP/M's file system. CP/M
>>> didn't have hierarchical directories
>> Neither did the original MS-DOS filesystem.
>>> or timestamps and recorded file sizes in 128-byte blocks
>>> rather than bytes.
>> I thought that was true of the original MS-DOS filesystem as
>> well, but I wouldn't bet money on it.
>I definitely remember that old MS-DOS programs would treat
>Ctrl-Z as an EOF marker when it was read from a text file and
>would terminate a text file with a Ctrl-Z when writing one.
>I don't know if that was because the underlying filesystem was
>still did everything in blocks or if it was because those
>MS-DOS programs were direct ports of CP/M programs.  I would
>have sworn that the orignal MS-DOS file API was FCB based and
>worked almost exactly like CP/M.  IIRC, the "byte stream" API
>showed up (in the OS) sever versions later.  The byte stream
>API was implemented by many compiler vendor's C libraries on
>top of the block-oriented FCB API.

My programming reference manual for MSDOS 6.0 (1993)
states the FCB stuff as "superseded" (not obsolete or obsolescent).
It states:
"A programmer should not use a superseded function except to
maintain compatibility with versions of MS-DOS earlier than
version 2.0."

FCB did *not* support paths, but you could access the current

>Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I had a lease on an

Groetjes Albert

Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters.
albert at spe&ar& &=n

More information about the Python-list mailing list