> Well, you're the second person who responded to my request...and I only
> e-mailed with one person.  So, let me give some more details and you can
> tell me if it was you or not.  (Sorry for my bad memory.)  The person
> I'm referring to had an application environment where they liked to keep
> around lots of small XLs with only one or two routines in them.  Because
> of this structure, they couldn't switch from CM->NM to any of these
> routines because of the limitation in switch that you can only switch to
> a single library.  So, instead, they built a special XL for switch that
> included all the routines from several XLs.  I said that dependent
> libraries was a product under invesigation that would fix this problem.
 
Again - Sorry about posting this to the list; I haven't been able to
reply directly.
 
Mike:
 
I think that was me! We had a few rather large procedures that we
wanted to implement as independent XLs for NM programs, with switch
stubs for CM programs, but since the procedures implemented as
independent XLs were calling procedures in other XLs, the switch
stubs wouldn't work.
 
Ray.
 =======================================================================
Raymond Kingsbury                       [log in to unmask]
Sr. Programmer/Analyst
College of the Redwoods - Data Processing          Voice: (707) 445-6778
Eureka, CA. 95501                                  Fax:   (707) 445-6990
 =======================================================================