🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <715981801snx@sugs.tware.com> landis@sugs.tware.com (Hale Landis) writes:
>In article <9209080106.AA19548@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> KENKAHN@PKSMRVM.VNET.IBM.COM writes:
>
>  > In <715895337snx@sugs.tware.com> Hale Landis writes:
>  > >Has anyone found the (missing) documentation for the KBD, MOU and
>  > >VIO functions in the OS/2 2.0 manuals?

>Sorry, but I think that is the wrong answer:  I don't have the
>1.x technical manuals and I bet few other people have them!  If
>these are supported, even if for backward compatibility, I should
>be able to find some reference to them in the 2.0 manuals.  Also,
>if they are considered 'old', then what replaces them?  How about
>some documentation to aid us old (read non-GUI) programmers that
>have programs that use these functions?

I havn't found any reference to the 1.x calls in the 2.0 toolkit, either.
I happen to have the MS PM 1.2 Toolkit, I just loaded up the quickhelp
and run with this.

>
>My bet is that there are far more non-GUI (not PM) programs
>than there are GUI (PM) programs for OS/2.  I also would bet
>that a lot of these will get 'upgraded' to 2.0 without being
>converted to PM programs.  By not including any documentation
>(not even the slightest reference) that I can find in the 2.0
>manuals, IBM is not making life easy out here.

Your right, I think that IBM has under-estimated the amount of programers
that simply want to code in a Vio format.  Most of what everyone
here does is get whatever engine they want running in a full screen
program... then its PM time.  This habit came from inherit problems
debugging under 1.x PM with codeview and dealing with Async events.

I don't think that 2.0 needs a 32bit Vio system, just some reference
for us to utilize the 16 system there.