[Info-vax] Text processing examples with Fortran requested

[Richard B. Gilbert]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 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
> 

The news media had a field day with it but the reality was a big yawn! 
The world did not end nor was there a bang or even a whimper.