Suggestions

[David Bryan]

In message <$YUGeIABvaE5Ew6j at mk-net.demon.co.uk>
          Tony van der Hoff <OSLib at mk-net.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, at 12:31:23, Jonathan Coxhead
> <jonathan at doves.demon.co.uk> wrote on the subject "Suggestions":
> 
> >
> >      OS$Path    was the path for header files, and
> >      OSLib$Path was the path for the library itself
> >
> What was the logic behind having two path variables? Would it be
> sensible to use OSLib$Path for both the library and the headers?

As the path defined by OSLib$Path was not a component of OS$Path,
this would have meant having five components in one path variable. 
This would reduce the depth in the directory hierarchy you could
place the library without hitting the 255 character limit on
environment variables earlier versions of RISC OS have.

It would seem to be a bit academic now.  OSLibInclude$Path now
consists of 6 components, and for me, eval LEN"<OSLibInclude$Path>"
gives 303.  Just using OSLib$Path now seems very sensible :-)

You could, of course, move o.OSLib to, say, Core.o.OSLib.  But
then that would be misleading.

-- 
David Bryan