Allen Walker wrote: 
 KF> Believe me, there was absolutely no prompting. Perhaps it wasn't your
 KF> patcher I got from here, since there were several of them posted, or
 KF> perhaps it was an earlier version of yours. I grabbed the last one I
 KF> saw posted. No docs, two executables in a uuencoded zip, one called
 KF> PATCH.EXE, the other UNPATCH.EXE. No prompts, no interaction. I typed
 KF> PATCH with no parameters and it started running through my directories,
 KF> starting at the root drive, and I had to force an abort to stop it. Does
 KF> that sound familiar?
 AW> Very. It was looking for .EXEs, .OVRs, .COMs and .TPLs with the CRT
 AW> bug to patch, as it was designed to do.
With no interaction between the program and the user, I had no idea what
the hell it was doing, and like most people who are leery about running
something that may do damage to years of hard work, I was unwilling to
let it run blindly.
 KF> I didn't mean to insult you, but I'm telling you what I experienced.
 KF> If the program is as simple as the code you just showed in this last
 KF> message, I'll certainly have a go at making it better.
 AW> All that was that I posted was the code to actually patch *a* file.
And it only patched the first instance of the serch string, BTW. My
revision fixed that, and added better speed.
 KF> See my next message in this thread for what I consider an interactive
 KF> and safe program.
 AW> Safe??  The only thing it was doing was searching for the search
 AW> pattern. Until it finds it it does nothing, and when it does it asks
 AW> if you want to post it. How simple did you want it?
I wanted to know what it was doing... even if it showed each file name.
Just seeing the path name of the directory it was in while it sat there
churning away made me very uncomfortable. Interaction would mean giving
more of an idea what it was doing for all that time.
 AW> Here is the original program in it's entirety, edited to remove the
 AW> need for my "Library" TPU. Do with it what you will. At least it will
 AW> show one way to do recursive Directory Tree following... : 
 AW> Uses CRT,DOS;
Your program only patches the first instance of the search string in
each block of data read from the file. Not efficient enough to post as
a compiled executable, like you did. At least now that you've posted
the source we can feel more assured of what your program does, and fix
the mistakes as well.
  Kim Forwood
---------------------------------------
 Internet: kim.forwood@elab.canbbs.net
  FidoNet: Kim Forwood, 1:153/831
---------------------------------------
--- Blue Wave/DOS v?.??
---------------