> Anyway, what is so bad with a set of GWASS-type macros to replace the
> Qmac ones provided the USER of these macros can code them in almost
> exactly the same way as for Qmac?
Simple: you have to change much of the code.
It depends how the "code" is organised. In PE applications it is natural to "include" a file containing all the Qmac macros needed. Actually for PE there are two files - one for window definitions and the other for text. In that case substituting one set of macros for another is easy. However, if the macros are dotted around all over the place in a disorganised way, then I admit it would be more tedious. However, since each macro must be enclosed in the header commands and "endm" it can easily be identified by a suitable editor thus making substitution quite easy. Indeed, this sort of problem is one I normally solve by the use of a one off Basic program which would make the substitutions automatically.
George
