[GEM Development] New features for GEM

[Ben A L Jemmett]

> This is an interesting bug.  I was not aware of it.  Ben?  John?  Why does
> it exist, and can it be fixed?

The Desktop has at least one hard limit on paths -- they can't exceed a
certain number of characters (64?).  I don't *think* that limit is any lower
than the limit DOS itself placed on path names back when GEM was written,
but of course modern systems can have deeper directory trees.  I seem to
recall a limitation in that folders can only be nested 8 deep -- again, I
don't recall this being more stringent than DOS originally, but ideally
should be addressed.

> By the way, Ben, did you ever get time to
> look into your new desktop release?

I did a bit of playing around with things, but didn't come up with anything
major worth releasing.  Hopefully I'll feel more inspired soon!

I have quite a bit of mail to catch up on, on this list and several
others -- I've been away for a fortnight (a week working, a week's holiday)
and there was a lot of traffic in that time.  I'll be able to reply to the
other gem-dev messages after lunch with luck.

Regards,
Ben A L Jemmett.
(http://web.ukonline.co.uk/ben.jemmett/, http://www.deltasoft.com/)