dn> Portable C is a very useful subset of real world code, but it certainly

dn> doesn't constitute the bulk of it.



Which is one reason I get a tad irritated when people forever go on about
standards and portability.  The real world has a habit of getting in the
way.

But then the goal of total portability is something I support totally - as
long as it doesn't get in the way of me achieving things. :-)



dn> independance. The first type of portability is desirable always,

dn> the second means that your program may not be useful. :-)



Or went way over budget and took twice as long to complete.



dn> but if you find yourself doing lots of rewriting it would certainly be

dn> worth considering.



Thankfully I haven't had to rewrite anything yet, and doubt I will. 
However most of my own 'standard' support libary compile happily under DOS,
VMS, and Unix so that will do for the time being.



dn> And, of course, writing portable or non-portable code has no

dn> relation whatsoever with one's IQ. :-)



Correct, as well all know that IQ is related directly to the compiler you
use. 





--- GoldED 2.42.G1121