Re: Dashwood

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 21:14:06 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:FMdMk.133765$KY3.27655@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pete,
Sort-of related to this post. The Standard requires that the original
item be the largest and that all redefining items be the same size or
smaller. I believe that there are a number of compilers that allow the
redefining items to be LARGER than the redefined items (as an extension).
You may want to check if your code can handle both cases (in determining
the size of the entire group - not each redefinition).


Ouch!

Thanks for the heads-up, Bill.

My feeling is that we simply wouldn't support "non-standard" implementations
for a free product. Robert may choose to differ and it is really his code.

Cobdata uses the length of the "original item", in other words the first definition of an
area, per the Standard. It wouldn't take much effort to use the largest. I will add that
when I review the new code.
.