🚀 go-pugleaf

Yes, there are some tricks you can use to shrink the executable.  I don't
have my cheat sheet handy but you can probably find it in a google search.
I wasn't suggesting that you use the special keys, but you should test the
condition because in certain circumstances the second key code may be a y or
n and perhaps cause problems.  I used to use .bat and .cmd files allot in my
day to day operations, then I started messing around with scripting.  It's
definitely more powerful.

--
Frank

"Hal Styli" <no_spam@all> wrote in message news:4003a1fc_5@127.0.0.1...
> "Frank Hickman" <fhickman_nosp@m_noblesoft.com> wrote in message
> news:yJOdnaEvW6CsFZ7d4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> > Coming along, one thing sticks out though...in your yn() function your
> still
> > not handling special keys.  Run it and try pressing F1, you should hear
> two
> > beeps.  This is because getch() will return zero or 0xE0 for special
keys
> in
> > which case getch() must be called again to get the extended key code.
> >
> > --
> > Frank
> >
> <<>>
>
> Thanks Frank,
>
> My version of CHOICE.COM on win98 gives 2 beeps when F1 is pressed, so I
> think  I'll leave it unless you think I should be doing something special
> with the special keys which I could put in as a non-standard extension.
>
> No promises but Im close to a version 0.5 of  a full blown choice command
> and would prefer to add no more features unless absolutely necessary to
keep
> maintenance  time to a minimum. I just wanted to port my bat files from 98
> to xp and be confident that I would have the choice command available, as
> well as humour myself with some C. I have seen a version in assembler on
> google but no source was available.
>
> Its gonna be 5-10 pages of code unless I have really underestimated how to
> properly check parameters. At this sort of size, I think its too small to
> stick on sourceforge but I would like to make it available as open source
> and generate more interest and testing as I have had many queries about
> where it has gone in xp. Is there an appropriate site you could reccomend
?
>
> How about reducing its size? If I could get it down to a couple of kb I
> would be tempted to stay with C for a final version.
>
> Obvious ideas are:-
> a) rewrite in assembler - which appeals to me since its an opportunity to
> learn more assembler too. I guess I could start with the assembler out put
> you can get from the compiler or keep hunting for an open source file as a
> starting point. Anyway thats for another day and another newsgroup.
> b) use all size optimization flags on compile
> c) do some sort of squeeze and remove debug info
> d) use some neat tricks that strip out unused code within these large exe
> files. Im guessing there are some neat tricks!
>
> Any thoughts?
> Hal.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>