PDP-11/40 videos

arcarlini at iee.org arcarlini at iee.org
Fri Mar 16 10:46:52 CDT 2007


Ethan Dicks wrote:
> I entirely support the use of file extensions to help humans avoid
> ambiguity.  I am opposed to the OS enforcing extensions, such as if
> you rename FOO.EXE to FOO.BAR, the OS refusing to execute the file
> arbitraily.

I think you mentioned VMS earlier. While it would be odd to call your
program FOO.COM instead of FOO.EXE, you certainly could do so. To
run it you would have to type
 $ RUN FOO.COM
rather than just
 $ RUN FOO
but if you did, it would work.

Same goes for pretty much anything I can think of off the top of
my head. The compilers certainly had defaults (e.g. FORTRAN would
expect a .FOR file and procduce a .OBJ file) but you could
override those if you wanted to.

It's been too long for me to accurately remember how RT-11
handled things, but I _think_ it too allowed the FORTRAN-66
compiler to accept FOO.BAS as input.

Antonio


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.11/723 - Release Date:
15/03/2007 11:27
 




More information about the cctalk mailing list