Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cyb-eng.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!cyb-eng!bc From: bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) Newsgroups: net.micro.pc Subject: Re: New DOS Interrupt List Posted Message-ID: <609@cyb-eng.UUCP> Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 12:04:07 EDT Article-I.D.: cyb-eng.609 Posted: Mon Aug 5 12:04:07 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 7-Aug-85 03:38:59 EDT References: <363@timeinc.UUCP> <1576@watdcsu.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Cyb Systems, Austin, TX Lines: 29 > The use of undocumented "features" makes your code dependent on a > particular version of the operating system. I would suggest that you > use undocumented interrupts *only* when there is no other way to > accomplish what you want to do. When this occurs you should pester > Microsoft to *add* a feature to the next release of the operating > system. > > I hope the software I'm using now wasn't written with dirty code, > because eventually I might like to upgrade to DOS 3.0 or 4.0 or 5.0.... For the majority of DOS applications, the above is certainly good advice. However, DOS applications that are really ambitious do typically have to use version-specific features of DOS. I suggest this is quite OK if: there is no way to avoid it, the payoff is worth it to the end user, and it is documented to be version-specific. I imagine that the vast majority of those interested in the list are involved with software of such sophistication. -- / \ Bill Crews ( bc ) Cyb Systems, Inc \__/ Austin, Texas [ gatech | ihnp4 | nbires | seismo | ucb-vax ] ! ut-sally ! cyb-eng ! bc