f2b3d809   
   From: jotel99@hotmail.com   
      
   BobKellock typed:   
   > Do you have a better solution?   
      
   better?   
      
   (btw.: modern systems have findclose or something like that to free   
   memory)   
      
   if u have to do it that way that u described it ...   
      
   why not store (part of) the results in a list or array?   
   but u have to kill it if u don't need it anymore.   
      
   more administration of course. but only a small array of e.g. 100   
   SearchRec + offset will increase speed in your case.   
      
   So the next 99-100 items u can read from list or array.   
   But there is no rule that with next start of findfirst u get same list   
   again.   
   Same problem u should have with your way mentioned too.   
      
   If u wanna use "snapshot" of the SearchRecs u have to do one and walk   
   through that snapshot and when using such a SR from the list make sure   
   it is still vaild (and then delete the structure afterwards) ;)   
      
   greets   
   jo   
      
   --   
   http://radio789.net.ms - Radio 789 - We play it ALL   
   Radiostream: http://stream789.net.ms   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)