Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!iuvax!bobmon
From: bobmon@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (RAMontante)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: v09i049: anaclock, analogue clock prog (part 01/02)
Message-ID: <77197@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: 8 Dec 90 19:08:38 GMT
References: <2470@sixhub.UUCP> <5068@bwdls58.UUCP>
Organization: 'twixt Dali and Dada
Lines: 26

mlord@bwdls58.bnr.ca (Mark Lord) <5068@bwdls58.UUCP> :
| Here's a suggestion you may find convenient:
| 
| Link the BGI files into the executable, so that the clock program becomes
| a fully self-contained module.  This would make it easier for me to use,
| and perhaps some others as well.  The Borland manuals explain how to do this,
| using BGITOOBJ (BGIOBJ ?) to create cga.obj and egavga.obj, which are then 
| linked along with the program into one happy executable.

Having been informed that I can link both .BGI files in, (and since I hope
to have a personal interest soon :-) I'll do that.  Thanks, Timo.

The manual wasn't *that* clear...

Discussion:  When I encountered these .BGI files, I thought, "How
interesting!  Now I can share one copy of this code amongst many
programs, instead of storing a separate copy in every program file that
does graphics.  Shared libraries on our favorite approximation to a real
OS!" :-).  Evidently this idea isn't very exciting to everybody else,
who keep telling me that I don't have to share the code, I can put a
separate copy into every program....  Is it that I'm hoarding disk space
more tightly than others, or does no one use enough of these graphics
files for it to matter?  Or what?

Living in the Shadows again...
bob,mon.