Hi, Paul.

PE> PE> You sent me this file, and it wasn't hatched into SPECIALR and it
PE> didn't
PE> PE> have a PD notice on it.  I therefore assume that it was for my personal
PE> use
PE> PE> only?  BFN.  Paul.

PE> FM> It was, originally. Then I thought Bob might be interested so I sent
PE> him
PE> FM> a message that I'd sent it to you. However as you didn't put it in
PE> FM> SPECIALR I'll send it again, with a TIC (if I remember how to do that).
PE> FM> And it seems you didn't want the file anyway, judging by what I take to
PE> FM> be your reply to it, in another message.

PE> I wanted a pascal version, that I could trial against a new C version, but
PE> you didn't have the former.  BFN.  Paul.

I *sent* you a Pascal version, I even warned you beforehand that the
compiler that you said you had on hand probably wouldn't handle it, but
you still said you wanted it.

This is not the world of ISO-compliant C, Paul - out here we write
small, fast, readable, maintainable code. Which works. I think
"portability" is fine but it sure ain't the be-all and end-all of
programming. To me, code which works comes first and if you can't cut
that in C, forget the rest.

Even if the MS-DOS platform isn't important to you, compare what you've
written to what I wrote - without even trying to optimise.

I've just had the opportunity (laid up in bed for a week) to read some
C++ code and comments from some people whom I'd regard as gurus. I know
you're certainly not an apologeticist for C++, but if that's a language
I'll stay where I am thanks.

Regards, fIM.

 * * Liberals embrace moral turpitude as ethical conduct!
@EOT:

---