Xref: news-dnh.mv.net comp.os.msdos.djgpp:1180
Path: news-dnh.mv.net!mv!news.sprintlink.net!psgrain!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mathworks.com!gatech!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!news.tamu.edu!news.utdallas.edu!news.starnet.net!wupost!waikato!comp.vuw.ac.nz!tao.sans.vuw.ac.nz!empty
From: empty AT sans DOT vuw DOT ac DOT nz (Malcolm Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: why no "normal" names for int(xyz) functions
Date: 26 Jul 1995 02:43:43 GMT
Organization: SANS, Student Access Network System
Lines: 19
References: <3v0ds9$kvp AT aurns1 DOT aur DOT alcatel DOT com>
Nntp-Posting-Host: tao.sans.vuw.ac.nz
To: djgpp AT sun DOT soe DOT clarkson DOT edu
Dj-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

John M. Klassa (klassa AT aur DOT alcatel DOT com) wrote:
: Hi-

: 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...

Many of the BIOS calls are implemented within functions, but for the 
calls that aren't (or to 'roll your own' versions) the int86(...) is 
available. One well used example of a call that doesn't exist as a 
function is the mouse. There is no standard in C for mouse functions, so 
they are not included. Opening files, using text on screen, accessing the 
keyboard ... all have specific function names for them.

Malcolm