Msg: 5844 *Conference*

06-06-95 14:10:04

From: RON WIESEN

To : RICHARD HANSON

Subj: REPLY TO MSG #5843 (TEENY IN UPLOAD SECTION)

It's not all fun Rick, but I know your fun level is less than mine because
demands on time are greater for you than for me.  Look at it this way: you
probably have greater cash flow (but tighter) than me.  Maybe you're one of
those "idle rich" that the Democrats keep complaining about (doubtful).
 
It took a lot of code inspection of TINY to get it relocatible (due to certain
intrinsic constructs).  Kind of a reverse engineering job which is anything but
fun.  Less code inspection (of PACK.100) was needed so that TEENY could be
enclosed in a relocating loader superior to Niel Wick's arrangement which
requires two files and operates slower.  That wasn't fun either, but now I have
a general purpose encode tool for M/L code.
 
Developement from TEENY to a batch file capable variant was fun!  The 13 byte
savings from TINY to TEENY, plus a few more byte savings from eliminating the
purge of keystrokes pending in the Type-ahead Buffer was fun and worthwhile.
To get program return (from BASIC Calls) instead of termination to MENU cost
some bytes.  With some whittling away at the prompt arrangement (to what I
believe is an improvement) the net byte count of the batch file variant ended
up a shade less than consumed by TINY.  That's fun for byte-fighter nerds like
me.  Now as soon as I get the BASIC batch program whittled down and its
features balanced against versatility, I'll upload it and the batch file
variant of TEENY.  What should it be named?  TINY and TEENY are taken.  Maybe
just D for disk file transfer utility!  I'll include a demo batch file.
 
At this point, most remaining work is of the fun type.  Wish you were here.