[Info-vax] Text processing examples with Fortran requested

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <pq-dnfAHIr6TPZ_WnZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d at giganews.com>,
	"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88 at comcast.net> writes:
> Michael Kraemer wrote:
>> In article <4b020bf8$0$271$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <arne at vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>> Michael Kraemer wrote:
>>>> In article <4b00b9f9$0$276$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <arne at vajhoej.dk> writes:
>>>>> Michael Kraemer wrote:
>>>>>> Arne Vajhøj schrieb:
>>>>>>> And besides Fortran 77 is not that bad. CHARACTER is fine. Fortran 66
>>>>>>> would be painful.
>>>>>> F77 can be almost as painful for text stuff because
>>>>>> IIRC the standard does not provide for dynamically allocated
>>>>>> character strings.
>>>>> Lack of dynamic allocation is not necessarily a problem
>>>>> for this type of problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't even think it is likely that it would be used
>>>>> even if it were available.
>>>> If you have to concatenate substrings of lengths unknown at
>>>> compile time, the only clean solution is dynamic memory.
>>>> I think this is a very common problem in text processing.
>>> In most cases you will know max lengths.
>> 
>> That's the mindset which creates Y2K problems.
> 
> The Y2K problem was anticipated at least twenty-five years before it 
> actually arrived!  No manager wanted to take the hit for fixing their 
> company's code when the problem would not manifest for twenty-five, 
> twenty-four, twenty-three. . . .  Oh my God!  It's HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And in the end it turned out to be more hype than reality.  Or did no
one here notice that the world didn't end after year "99".

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>