Tom writes:

> >You're probably right, but I still don't like relying on a negative, I'd
>  >rather rely on a positive.
>
>  I agree!

As long as I'm in a "disagreeable" mode of late, let me disagree with Tom too.

When it gets down to the nitty-gritty, the code that you would have to write
to engage the "positive" test is bound to be exactly identical to the
"negative" code that exists now: a test would have to be made to see if the
chain length of the particular datavalue in the manual master is zero or not.
If it is, then the entry can be safely deleted. If it isn't, then it can't.

It's only the wording of the test that would be differently phrased, not the
code, and that's more a matter of psychology than physics (but that's to say
that I don't think that user psychology and understanding is not very
important).

Wirt Atmar