> ... pre-allocating a large enough header space to hold ...
replyIsn't the point of compression is to eliminate such wastes of space?
It's a trade between size and speed. If you want fast lookup, it's not a waste.
replySure, this would also work. But it seems more complicated -- what would be the benefit?
replyLosing the back half of the achieve doesn't lose your directory list. (Truth be told, I prefer the approach of sticking a copy on the front and back for redundancy, but I appreciate that that's a very specific tradeoff)
replyIsn't this basically FAT without the actual allocation table?
reply