> 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.