Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!uhnix1!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: window/event/conman questions Message-ID: <4727@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 10 Dec 89 21:36:55 GMT References: <29800002@inmet> <4688@sugar.hackercorp.com> <6377@stsusa.com> <4699@sugar.hackercorp.com> <377@icebox.nsc.com> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 14 In article <377@icebox.nsc.com> waggoner@icebox.UUCP (Mark Waggoner) writes: > In article <4699@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >I thought ConMan was a straight drop in for CON:, just like NEWCON: is. If > >that's the case, why wouldn't you have access to it from Xlisp? > The method he was using to connect ConMan to the window is supported > only by ConMan, not by CON: or NEWCON:... I *know* that much. However he implied that he couldn't use ConMan from Xlisp for some reason. I'm inquiring as to what that reason might be. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"