PE> Are you using the latest alpha?

BG> Of course.  I wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise.

You picked it up from David then did you, because I didn't send it
to you, I crashed it to David instead because I didn't think you
were going to be around.

BG> To date, the 16-05-95 17:46 3.1.alpha OS/2 executable has been faultless, 
BG> and is considerably more reliable than the two subsequent versions. I may 
BG> even end up using it permanently, regardless of future releases.

PE> Then the new releases will continue to have the same bug in it,
PE> and you are not alpha-testing to help make MSGED a better product.

BG> Not necessarily.  You have changed parts of the source for each version, 
BG> and have used god-only-knows how many different compilers, so new bugs are 
BG> unlikely to be continued aross versions, wouldn't you say?

Any bug that is being experienced and I have not done anything to
fix is likely to remain.  I have not changed any source in response
to your bug report, although I scoured it trying to find out how it
could possibly happen.  As fate would have it, I did change two 
things that affected the display of that line (actually one of them
affected the display of all three lines), but I couldn't find any
reason why the changes would do that, and probably they don't, it
was some other phenomenon.  BTW, the OS/2 version has always been
compiled with Watcom.  And it has always compiled on all 4 OS/2
compilers I chose to support.  What I did do was change code so
that the DOS version would work on both Watcom C for DOS and Turbo
C for DOS instead of just Borland C for DOS.  I did attempt to 
switch DOS compilers but then switched back to Borland.  Check out
a message I hope to write soon to find out more!  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---