LFNs are a Win95 addition, not originally available in pure DOS mode. So older compilers don't support it transparently. Some compilers (e.g. DJGPP) support LFNs out of the box, but EDIT is not compiled with that. IIRC, EDIT used TurboC or TC++ or similar.
If you don't want to use a different text editor, you can code a simple workaround:
E.BAT
@echo off
REM get L.EXE from DOSLFN
REM http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/...
REM .../util/system/doslfn/0.41/
if "%1"=="" goto end
if not exist %1 goto end
set /e EDITFILE=l.exe shortname %1
edit.exe %EDITFILE%
:end
set EDITFILE=
===================================
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
LFNs are a Win95 addition, not originally available in pure DOS mode. So
older compilers don't support it transparently. Some compilers (e.g. DJGPP)
support LFNs out of the box, but EDIT is not compiled with that. IIRC, EDIT
used TurboC or TC++ or similar.
If you don't want to use a different text editor, you can code a simple
workaround:
E.BAT
@echo off
REM get L.EXE from DOSLFN
REM http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/...
REM .../util/system/doslfn/0.41/
if "%1"=="" goto end
if not exist %1 goto end
set /e EDITFILE=l.exe shortname %1
edit.exe %EDITFILE%
:end
set EDITFILE=
===================================
The context is - I'm having a look at the long filename support of some
programs in freedos under dosemu - if I get time I'll try and get
openwatcom installed and have a poke at some things.
LFNs are a Win95 addition, not originally available in pure DOS mode. So
older compilers don't support it transparently. Some compilers (e.g. DJGPP)
support LFNs out of the box, but EDIT is not compiled with that. IIRC, EDIT
used TurboC or TC++ or similar.
If you don't want to use a different text editor, you can code a simple
workaround:
E.BAT
@echo off
REM get L.EXE from DOSLFN
REM http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/...
REM .../util/system/doslfn/0.41/
if "%1"=="" goto end
if not exist %1 goto end
set /e EDITFILE=l.exe shortname %1
edit.exe %EDITFILE%
:end
set EDITFILE=
===================================
The context is - I'm having a look at the long filename support of some
programs in freedos under dosemu - if I get time I'll try and get
openwatcom installed and have a poke at some things.
LFNs are a Win95 addition, not originally available in pure DOS mode. So
older compilers don't support it transparently. Some compilers (e.g. DJGPP)
support LFNs out of the box, but EDIT is not compiled with that. IIRC, EDIT
used TurboC or TC++ or similar.
If you don't want to use a different text editor, you can code a simple
workaround:
E.BAT
@echo off
REM get L.EXE from DOSLFN
REM http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/...
REM .../util/system/doslfn/0.41/
if "%1"=="" goto end
if not exist %1 goto end
set /e EDITFILE=l.exe shortname %1
edit.exe %EDITFILE%
:end
set EDITFILE=
===================================
There are some FD programs using the IO95 shim, but I don't know how reliable it is. Also, OpenWatcom, currently stable at 1.9, only halfway has LFN support, and I only locally got it working in one 16-bit program (with -DWATCOM_LFN or whatever). Even the 32-bit compiler binaries themselves don't support it. Though OW 2.0-pre claims to be improved in that area, but I haven't bothered testing the unofficial DOS snapshot.
As for FD EDIT, sure it's technically possible that someone can patch it to compile with OW, but by default I don't know how easy that is. The maintainer is Aitor, but he doesn't have much time to work on such things these days. I wouldn't pin too much hope on that unless you want to do it entirely yourself.
Unfortunately, most FD software is not able to be compiled with dozens of compilers, usually it's quite specific. The easiest choice is to just use a different text editor, e.g. something compiled by DJGPP, if LFN support is that crucial. FD EDIT wasn't meant to be the end-all text editor, just a suitable 8086-ish replacement with similar UI.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
This is a feature request.
As a DOS tool, EDIT was never supposed to be LFN-aware, although it would be a nice thing to have.
It's not just a question of porting IO95 to OWC/DFlat/DFlat+, but also there are some dialogs that may be impacted too.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
LFNs are a Win95 addition, not originally available in pure DOS mode. So older compilers don't support it transparently. Some compilers (e.g. DJGPP) support LFNs out of the box, but EDIT is not compiled with that. IIRC, EDIT used TurboC or TC++ or similar.
If you don't want to use a different text editor, you can code a simple workaround:
E.BAT
@echo off
REM get L.EXE from DOSLFN
REM http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/micro/pc-stuff/freedos/files/...
REM .../util/system/doslfn/0.41/
if "%1"=="" goto end
if not exist %1 goto end
set /e EDITFILE=l.exe shortname %1
edit.exe %EDITFILE%
:end
set EDITFILE=
===================================
Is it possible to compile it with watcom and get the support, or is it
DFLAT that would need this ?
On 13 May 2014 21:38, Anthony Williams rugxulo@users.sf.net wrote:
Related
Bugs: #120
The context is - I'm having a look at the long filename support of some
programs in freedos under dosemu - if I get time I'll try and get
openwatcom installed and have a poke at some things.
On 13 May 2014 21:59, Stu stu.axon@gmail.com wrote:
Related
Bugs: #120
Interestingly there is a GPL wrapper to provide LFN support to turboc
programmes
http://www2.inf.fh-rhein-sieg.de/~skaise2a/ska/sources.html#io95
On 13 May 2014 22:06, Stu stu.axon@gmail.com wrote:
Related
Bugs: #120
There are some FD programs using the IO95 shim, but I don't know how reliable it is. Also, OpenWatcom, currently stable at 1.9, only halfway has LFN support, and I only locally got it working in one 16-bit program (with -DWATCOM_LFN or whatever). Even the 32-bit compiler binaries themselves don't support it. Though OW 2.0-pre claims to be improved in that area, but I haven't bothered testing the unofficial DOS snapshot.
As for FD EDIT, sure it's technically possible that someone can patch it to compile with OW, but by default I don't know how easy that is. The maintainer is Aitor, but he doesn't have much time to work on such things these days. I wouldn't pin too much hope on that unless you want to do it entirely yourself.
Unfortunately, most FD software is not able to be compiled with dozens of compilers, usually it's quite specific. The easiest choice is to just use a different text editor, e.g. something compiled by DJGPP, if LFN support is that crucial. FD EDIT wasn't meant to be the end-all text editor, just a suitable 8086-ish replacement with similar UI.
I consider "LFNs" as a flaw, not a feature.
BUG #2 : https://sourceforge.net/p/freedos/bugs/2/
BUG #112 : https://sourceforge.net/p/freedos/bugs/112/
Last edit: dos386 2014-07-09
This is a feature request.
As a DOS tool, EDIT was never supposed to be LFN-aware, although it would be a nice thing to have.
It's not just a question of porting IO95 to OWC/DFlat/DFlat+, but also there are some dialogs that may be impacted too.