Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:27678 alt.flame:17030 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!ames!sgi!zok!wattres!steve From: steve@wattres.UUCP (Steve Watt) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,alt.flame Subject: Re: Is it time for comp.lang.c.dos? Summary: No. It's called comp.sys.ibm.pc.prgrammer Message-ID: <456@wattres.UUCP> Date: 9 Apr 90 06:05:42 GMT References: <1990Mar29.224413.21552@xenitec.on.ca> <1990Mar31.153231.4926@druid.uucp> <1990Apr3.091427.19910@kfw.COM> <1990Apr5.191012.26651@druid.uucp> <403:Apr901:26:4290@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> Reply-To: steve@wattres.UUCP (Steve Watt) Followup-To: comp.lang.c Distribution: usa Organization: Steven Watt, Consultant Lines: 20 In article <403:Apr901:26:4290@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: >X-Original-Subject: Re: TC "system" and "setcolor" questions answered >In article peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >> this discussion no longer has any bearing on comp.lang.c. >IMNSFHO the DOS-specific questions should be separated out in the first >place, perhaps into comp.lang.c.dos. Anyone like this enough to start a There already is such a beast! It is called COMP.SYS.IBM.PC.PROGRAMMER!!!!!! But *why* can't we get people to use it???? Sorry about the flame, but I've gotten sick of mailing semi-rude things to these people... -- Steve Watt ...!claris!wattres!steve wattres!steve@claris.com also works If you torture your data long enough, it'll eventually confess.