For what it is worth, you can find a copy of the reference guide at Scribd.com; a quick look at it indicates that the answer you want is (I think) 'Crtl-K H'.
If you don't mind me asking, how is it you are using this particular compiler? It is so old it won't run on most modern systems without an emulator, and I am guessing is older than you are. There are several good C and C++ compiler/IDE combinations available for free, such as Pelles C or Code::Blocks with MinGW GCC. Why Turbo?
(Mind you, a simple 'I happen to like it' is adequate. But if you are using it because you didn't know of a more modern C compiler, I would recommend switching. There are also implementations of the Borland graphics and console libraries which can be used to support older code with up-to-date systems, so it isn't strictly necessary for maintaining some ancient programs, which is another possibility that occurred to me.)
Thank you for the information and the question. I have Visual C++, and have tried Digital Mars and Pelles, but I noticed that I didn't enjoy programming anymore. So I decided to go back in time a little.
I built my first XT compatible in 1987. The first piece of software I bought for it was Borland Turbo C 1.0. It came on 2 x 3.5 inch diskettes. I upgraded to TC 2.01 sometime in the early 90s and have kept the disks ever since. I just don't have a full set of manuals anymore. Suddenly, I'm enjoying myself again. I guess it's a 'me' problem. ;)
That explains a great deal :) You are using Turbo C because you are a hobyist, not a student who is forced to use it by his/her university. Sorry, but I can't help you either because I havn't used it since about 1987 myself.
If you are still trying to write code for that old XT compatible computer, or for anything older than Windows XP then Turbot C should work ok. You might have a lot of problems on newer versions of Windows.
TY for the information. I'm not sure what happened to that XT. I wish I still had it. I'd like to see if Windows 3.1 would run on it. I wasn't a Windows user then, so I never tried it. I upgraded it to one of those 7MHz NEC-V20 CPU chips. At the time it was pretty fast. It started with a 20 Meg HDD, that cost me $400 and ended up with 2 x Seagate 85Meg SCSIs in it.
Now I have two handbuilt AMD 3+ quad core systems and a Mac G-4. I've tried Windows 7, and I can almost live with it, but I'm using XP now and will continue to do so as long as possible. As for Windows 8, I bought it, tried it and then shredded the CD. That's one of the reasons I have a Mac after all these years. If Mickeysoft has one more release like Win 8, I'm going to bail.
well, Windows XP went the way of the dodo years ago, and has now officially become a fossil.
But then, you're running 30+ year old software on it so you shouldn't complain about running unsupported operating systems, nor should you expect support from us for using that 30+ year old software.
Windows 8 works well enough, only fools and dinosaurs who refuse to put in a few minutes to figure out the user interface scream about it the way you do.
Of course that 30 year old software isn't going to run on it the way it did on the 30 year old operating system it was designed for.
What'd you expect?
Given the changes in hardware architecture alone it's not going to run well, even if you got a 30 year old operating system to install on a current computer (tip: don't bother to try, it will almost certainly fail).