> "John F. Woods" <jfw@jfwhome.funhouse.com>  wrote:
>  > 386-dependant hacks ;-), and no one has apparently felt the urge to 
>  > go over it and make it machine independant (unfortunately, neither has
>  > anyone in the core group gone and architected a new solution).  (I share
> 
> On the contrary, Chris had architected a solution and presented it to
> some people but then never got around to implementing it presumably
> as a result of being re-directed to other areas of work. Anyways, just
> thought I'd point that out.

Of course, i also pointed out that i thought that the solution that i
architectected was in need of ... a bit of work, still.


I've not gotten around to redoing my redone version.  8-)


chris