Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!wanttaja From: wanttaja@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ronald J Wanttaja) Newsgroups: net.micro.cbm Subject: "@0:" vs "@:" Message-ID: <198@ssc-vax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Jun-84 19:08:38 EDT Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.198 Posted: Mon Jun 11 19:08:38 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Jun-84 23:48:15 EDT Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle Lines: 13 < ** COMMODORE BASIC V2.0 **> 38911 BYTES FREE Regarding the use of "@0:" vs. "@:" for the save and replace function, I used the "@0:" method for almost a year before I had a directory trashed. I rarely use seqential or other types of files other than PRG, so that might have something to do with it, too. Incidentally, that first directory trash only occured AFTER Compute had a short blurb on it... makes ya wonder, doesn't it....? Ron Wanttaja (ssc-vax!wanttaja)