On 2013-04-12, at 05:23, William Levak wrote: > Found the problem. The first file on the disk was a C4 file. When I loaded it, it loaded higher up in memory, where it didn't list. > > Both ":*" and "?*" produce the same result. Right. Both are (in slightly different ways) good to trigger skipping the DOS "*" part of code. > "0:?*" is only necessary if you got a file not found error, where the next load may try to load from the nonexistant drive 1. Wouldn't in such case a "0:*" still be sufficient? -- SD! Message was sent through the cbm-hackers mailing listReceived on 2013-04-12 12:00:03
Archive generated by hypermail 2.2.0.