RM> And they're also in C++... Given your religious objections to
RM> anything that isn't pure-as-the-driven-smog ISO C, are my C++
RM> programs still welcome? 

I've got 10 MEGABYTES (compressed) cooking recipes on my system,
despite the fact that I don't even boil water.  When I found out
that recipes were all public domain, BANG!  I've never seen 
anyone FREQ any of them though, almost got them onto a CD that
I wrote though.  As you can see, I'll take public domain
anything.  PD is rare enough that I figure *I* can buy hard disks
faster than the *world* can write PD software.  

BTW, I never specifically objected to C++.  I *personally* choose
to write C until such time that C++ is available anywhere I'm
likely to be (at the moment I can't even get a 100% ISO C compiler
everywhere I want to be - both SAS/C 6.55 for Amigados and
Sun's acc for SunOs 4.1.3 have problems), so C++ is way out of
the running.  However, the fact that so many people are using C++
for it's object-orientedness just highlights how little they
know about object-orientedness since you can write object-oriented
C, as I do, and as I made my wife do when I gave her the specs
for the DLIST routines which I posted here recently, but before
I finish the sentence I would like to say that I make no claims to
being an OO expert, just a beginner-journeyman.

So yeah, fire anything you are happy to contribute, and if it's
self-contained it goes in an archive of it's own, and if it's
a single C routine (or, e.g. the sqhash.asm routine in 80386
assembler) that doesn't fit in anywhere else, it goes into 
OZPD (so long as it looks reasonably clean).  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---