>   As I began adding the toolbox calls that I'll need, it struck me 
> that in some ways I am adding to what I now perceive as our common 
> dilemma.  You see, there's little doubt I'll not add any more toolbox 
> calls than I actually plan to use.  As a result, these efforts will 
> serve only me.  Even if I were to distribute the toolbox calls I've 
> added, another user would have to be doing pretty much exactly the 
> same thing I'm doing or they will have to add their own calls to the 
> list that I started.
>
>     On the other hand, if we all have access to the same complete set 
> of header files, I feel strongly that we will see a lot less 
> isolationism in the FB community.  Once the foundation of operating 
> system access is made the same for everyone, I'd be willing to bet 
> that you'll see a huge increase in shared modular code and other 
> resources.
>
>     Am I way off the mark here?

Not at all off the mark. Unfortunately, header files contain not just 
function prototypes ('Toolbox' functions) but also:
  structures
  constants (usually as enum)
  macro definitions
  macro invocations
  conditional compilation based on flags unknown to FB

Dealing with these can be more difficult than translating function 
prototypes; human intervention is sometimes required.

FYI, some recent FB Header files are based on the corresponding C 
headers.  For instance Tlbx MacHelp.Incl and Tlbx OSA.Incl derive from 
MacHelp.h and OSA.h.

Robert P.