Le 2013-09-10 10:07, Francois Labreque a écrit :
> Le 2013-09-07 16:49, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 17:01:44 -0400, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>
>>> Why would they need fewer people to support FAT32 by arbitrarily
>>> limiting the size of the drives you can use it on to 1/1000th of its
>>> full potential?
>>
>> Because when the code was written, it was written.  To extend the
>> limitation requires more code be written.
>
> What do you mean by extend the limitation?  When a programmer was
> assigned the task of writing support for FAT32, why would he (or she) be
> told to only support 1/1000th of the specifications full potential?"
> (Apart from an oops where the programmer checked for a 16 gigabytes
> limit instead of the 16 terabytes supported by the spec)
>

Correction to my prior post.

When the programmer was assigned the task of writing support for FAT32, 
why would he or she be told to support the full specification for 
reading and writing, but only allow formatting drives that are 1/1000th 
or less of the size allowed infull specification?  Apart from an oops 
where the programmer checked for a 16 gigabytes limit instead of the 16 
terabytes supported by the spec)



-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message