G'Day Paul,

-=> Quoting Paul Edwards to Frank Adam <=-

 PE> You can't.  In fact, the ISO (BTW the ANSI standard was superceded
 PE> by the ISO standard about 3-4 years ago) standard says that a
 PE> strictly conforming program can only expect one data object of
 PE> 32767 to be allocated, so expecting more than 65535 is way out
 PE> of line.  BFN.  Paul.
Damn, i thought i was writing non-ANSI, and it was non-ISO all along :)

But this is where i get ticked off with ISO/ANSI compliance.
I'd be very interested to find out just how many of the leading software 
packages out there(both shareware and commercial) would be ISO.
Large amount of today's software would be written with OOPS, i find it hard 
to believe that anyone would use the alloc family functions when new is 
easier and more efficient, and it does allocate far on demand.
Not to mention that classes use the new function to allocate themselves.
One might say that classes are non ISO anyway..
I have actually made a decent effort to write portably for any publicly 
posted code, but i would not bother much about portability for my own code,
after all time is money. 
It may be a problem later on if i buy another compiler, but most of the stuff 
i finish won't need repair by then, or won't be needed anymore. 
At the same time why bother spending $6-700 for compilers, if one can't use 
half the functions in them just to be compliant ?
All very well to have a standard, but the standard should be standardized 
more often to follow industry changes. 


I thought dos was in 64K chunks, so why does ISO say 32K maximum anyway ?       
                                                                        

  L8r Frank (fadam{at}ozemail.com.au)

___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.21
          

--- Maximus 3.00