From:	"AndrewJ" <luminous-is AT home DOT com>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000517102155 DOT 4709I-100000 AT is>
Subject:	Re: __dpmi_paddr and DJGPP pointers [OT]
Lines:	23
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Newsreader:	Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
Message-ID:	<6aUU4.62488$55.1309558@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>
Date:	Thu, 18 May 2000 15:40:50 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host:	24.42.120.18
X-Complaints-To:	abuse AT home DOT net
X-Trace:	news2.rdc1.on.home.com 958664450 24.42.120.18 (Thu, 18 May 2000 08:40:50 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date:	Thu, 18 May 2000 08:40:50 PDT
Organization:	@Home Network Canada
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

> > I've used Watcom for years now, and it's flat model is unprotected (the
> > equivalent to __djgpp_nearptr_enable() on all the time) and I've never,
ever,
> > ever trashed anything on the harddrive.
>
> Sheer luck, if you ask me.

I prefer to think of it as an attestment to my skills as a programmer.

Or, more likely, dumb luck (not sheer luck). <g>

I think an unprotected memory model is more in the spirit of the C language.  C
assumes the programmer knows what he is doing.  So does an unprotected memory
model.  They sort of go hand in hand.

Incidently, Eli, is there any particular reason that your follow-ups are also
CC'd to the recipient?  It doesn't really bother me, but it sometimes makes me
think twice about why I got mail from you. =)

AndrewJ

- Raw text -