I've seen in postings on this BBS, and I think in my online
PB/DLL 6.0 help, that it's better to use LONG's than INTEGER's
where possible, because it makes for greater CPU efficiency.
My question is: does this also apply to programs written using
PB/DOS? It seems like it would, because, whether it's a 32-bit
program or a DOS program, they both use the same CPU. However,
I need to make sure, so I can decide on whether or not to recode
my custom PBU's (and for future DOS programming). The main reason
that I'm not sure is that my QPP (version 1.30) uses almost
nothing but INTEGER's in its procedures. So, maybe the DOS
anatomy is better off using INTEGER's, as compared to LONG's?
Thanks in advance!
------------------
Clay C. Clear
mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>
Clay Clear's Software
PB/DLL 6.0 help, that it's better to use LONG's than INTEGER's
where possible, because it makes for greater CPU efficiency.
My question is: does this also apply to programs written using
PB/DOS? It seems like it would, because, whether it's a 32-bit
program or a DOS program, they both use the same CPU. However,
I need to make sure, so I can decide on whether or not to recode
my custom PBU's (and for future DOS programming). The main reason
that I'm not sure is that my QPP (version 1.30) uses almost
nothing but INTEGER's in its procedures. So, maybe the DOS
anatomy is better off using INTEGER's, as compared to LONG's?
Thanks in advance!

------------------
Clay C. Clear
mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>
Clay Clear's Software
Comment