Xref: utzoo comp.windows.ms:13987 comp.windows.ms.programmer:3221
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uupsi!tate!tomr
From: tomr@dbase.a-t.com (Tom Rombouts)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: PATH for Windows applications
Message-ID: <1991Jun20.194950.10852@dbase.a-t.com>
Date: 20 Jun 91 19:49:50 GMT
References: <1991Jun18.161154.28800@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> <43977@fmsrl7.UUCP>
Sender: news@tate.a-t.com
Organization: Ashton-Tate, Inc.
Lines: 23
Originator: tomr@dbase
Nntp-Posting-Host: dbase

In article <43977@fmsrl7.UUCP> hugh@slee01.srl.ford.com (Hugh Fader) writes:
>mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>>      I'm surprised that no one else has yet mentioned the main reason
>> not to use argv[0] to get the path: it isn't portable.  If your program
>> will never run on anything but DOS, then maybe it's a good idea.  (For
>
>We _are_ talking about programs that will never run on anything but
>DOS -- Windows programs. 
   [ rest deleted ]

Based on some recent comments in the PC press, I don't
know about this.  Also, aren't I correct that either OS/2 2.0
or else a future MS OS/2 will be able to run Windows apps natively?
(And thus use the OS/2 HPFS file system instead of DOS underneath?)  

I think this could be a good area for discussion - things to think
about when writing Windows apps that may someday be on other
CPU/OS configurations.

Or will they be less portable (in reality) than I think?


Tom Rombouts  Torrance 'Tater  tomr@ashtate.A-T.com