you almost had me there, anonymous- but then i remembered something

thin bindings.

freebasic uses thin bindings for working with c libs- this is significant... but since your attack on my post was far more elegant than any i've seen so far (elegant, i'm not *sure* how correct it is, but it's certainly interesting) i bet you can make an argument for why thin bindings DON'T support what i'm generally talking about- the "c-ness" of freebasic.

not that you're obligated by any means, it would be my job to say why they support what i'm saying, but it would be redundant when mystikshadows already did such a good job of explaining how they fit into the mess in his qbe article.

i'll stand by what i said, but there may have been errors in it. that goes without saying. although i was more sure of the explanation before reading your post (fud indeed?) i'm not less sure of the conclusion. i don't think you'll be back, you're probably *not* a regular here (fbnb.net perhaps) but i would love to hear why you think thin bindings do not make freebasic more like c, if you have time and interest in saying so.