Yes, the objects are created with the new operator, that way I can just call delete on the object pointer. It's mostly for convenience. ...And, I only have one main thread in these applications,...the sequence of operations are not all that complicated. The end result is to write alot of the data to file. I had thought that for small objects, they would somehow live on the stack. (Shows you how ignorant I am of memory management.) The term "class objects" I just use to describe what is a contiguous block of data. You seemed to get the idea pretty clearly. Thanks for the information. I'll play around with it a little, just to get a better idea of how it works.

Baltoro wrote: Unfortunately, I can't even...repair the version. I know it looks confusing. Actually you can. Go to one of your other posts and click the Edit button. Change the number in the URL to 2983307. "Old age is like a bank account. You withdraw later in life what you have deposited along the way." - Unknown "Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons

From one respect, I entirely agree with you as I've already explained in my previous posts. In this case, there's the only way is that these posts containing incomplete programming questions must be removed by forum's moderators. :)

fat_boy, Thanks, I was worried about actually loading and executing, and the potential for irrevocably damaging essential components. Now, I know,... Thanks again, I really appreciate it.

...thanks, ...cmk I was referring to a remote thread, even though it was unstated. I asked this question over on the Microsoft Technical Forums and got approximately the same answer. It isn't really a problem, I was just curious.