Xref:	news-dnh.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:1120
Path:	news-dnh.mv.net!mv!news.sprintlink.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!gatech!news01.aud.alcatel.com!aur.alcatel.com!klassa
From:	klassa AT aur DOT alcatel DOT com (John M. Klassa)
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	why no "normal" names for int(xyz) functions
Date:	24 Jul 1995 15:22:49 GMT
Organization:	Alcatel Network Systems, Inc (Raleigh, NC)
Lines:	33
Nntp-Posting-Host:	aursx9.aur.alcatel.com
To:	djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Dj-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

Hi-

I've been out of the PC world for a good number of years now (I do
Unix/embedded-systems stuff at work, have an Atari ST at home and
haven't tried to program a PC in years).  I recently got a PC & went
straight for DJGPP, with the intent to write something.  Don't know what
yet -- just something :-).

Anyway, what struck me right away was the number of references to things
like:

        r.x.ax = 0x0013;
        int86(0x10, &r, &r);

in sample code.  It seems like using the BIOS (or whatever this
particular example happens to reflect) involves knowing specific
function *numbers*...  In the Atari ST world, BIOS routines are done
more or less the same way, but compilers always included bindings so
that "normal" names could be used in place of "bios_function(12)"
(e.g.).  That is, you'd say "SetPalette(a,b,c)" rather than
"int(0x22,a,b,c)" (you get the idea).

Do I have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I've been reading? Is
there more to it than this?  Any insights would be appreciated...

Thanks!
John

-- 
John Klassa                       Subject: @CMD help          \        /\  /\
Alcatel Network Systems              for info...               \  /\  &  \/  \
Raleigh, NC, USA                klassa AT aur DOT alcatel DOT com          \/  \/        \
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Raw text -