HS> Most compilers accept non-standard code. And most
 HS> people understand non-standard code aswell.
DM>Are you sure about either, or is it just YOUR compiler(s)?  I seem to
DM>recall you going on about some non-standard code
DM>(cprintf?) that happens
DM>to work on YOUR compilers, but not really _ALL_ current compilers.
 HS> How many other compilers need cprintf? There's no use
Pfft. You don't even know what it does.
DM>None.  Not standard.
 HS> whining if someone is too stupid to realize that
 HS> cprintf() is only useful within DOS. Hence, all DOS
DM>This echo is not just for those who already know C, but for those
DM>learning, too.  Your exclusion of those learning is one of the reasons
DM>that you are slowly being twitted by anyone who knows better.
Your unwarranted assumption is noted, and rejected. Please stay ontopic or 
stop bothering me altogether.
 HS> compilers have it (the ones that I know of anyway, and
 HS> that list is big). If a DOS compilers doesn't have it,
DM>I believe I've seen a list of four or five already posted that don't -
DM>and they're DOS compilers.
You believe? I KNOW that mainstream compilers have it .. Watcom, Borland, 
Djgpp, etc. If a compiler doesn't have it, then it most likely contains an 
equivalent.
 HS> then it would most likely contain an equivalent.
DM>Why?  What happened to printf anyway?
With cprintf, the string is written either directly to screen memory or by 
way of a BIOS call, depending on the value of directvideo.
cprintf does not translate linefeed characters (\n) into 
carriage-return/linefeed character pairs (\r\n).
Ever wondered why textcolor(), textbackground(), textattr().. etc don't seem 
to affect stdout with printf? That's why they implemented cprintf() for 
direct output to screen. If a compiler contains the functions textcolor() 
etc, then it HAS an equivalent for cprintf().
 HS> SomeType *mytime = (SomeType *)malloc(sizeof(SomeType))
 HS> when,
 HS> SomeType *mytype = malloc(.... etc
 HS> compiles. Even though ANSI-C++ forbids void *
DM>We're not talking about C++, are we?  I thought this was the C echo.
 HS> Same concept applies to C. You did realize that, didn't you?
No. The same general concept applies - Even though it's erroneous to the 
standard, it works.
 HS> conversion it still works, doesn't it? I could go on
 HS> and on about it but I assume you get the idea.
DM>Yes, I get the idea that you have no clue about what standards mean.
 HS> Just as I suspected. Your brain failed to synapse such infantile
DM>logic.
DM>Something like that.  Now, if you'd stop using infantile logic...
Education begins at the lowest level.
... Basic programmers never die. They just GOSUB without RETURN!
--- Ezycom V1.48g0 01fd016b
---------------