From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 101deb,23963231b5359f74
X-Google-Attributes: gid101deb,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,23963231b5359f74
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 10a146,23963231b5359f74
X-Google-Attributes: gid10a146,public
X-Google-Thread: 1073c2,23963231b5359f74
X-Google-Attributes: gid1073c2,public
X-Google-Thread: 107a89,23963231b5359f74
X-Google-Attributes: gid107a89,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-06-10 07:19:18 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: gazelle@yin.interaccess.com (Kenny McCormack)
Newsgroups: 
 comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.clarion,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.pl1,comp.lang.vrml
Subject: Re: Memory Allocation without pointer arithmetic ? (was: Long
 names...)
Date: 10 Jun 2001 09:17:29 -0500
Organization: The official candy of the new Millennium
Message-ID: <9fvvhp$ae9$1@yin.interaccess.com>
References: <9f2nks$ibd$0@dosa.alt.net> <9fli1b$4aa$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <vj7tht0jkrkoivki4lsadlivgghdr0Organization
 <$l53AZgRoQvs@eisner.encompasserve.org>
Reply-To: gazelle@interaccess.com
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8513 comp.lang.clarion:21581
 comp.lang.java.programmer:75083 comp.lang.pl1:960 comp.lang.vrml:3698
Date: 2001-06-10T09:17:29-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <$l53AZgRoQvs@eisner.encompasserve.org>,
Larry Kilgallen <Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam> wrote:
>You misunderstand the question.
>
>It is not a matter of how to allocation memory in a PL/I program.
>
>The question is whether it is possible for the PL/I runtime system
>implementation of memory allocation to be accomplished without use
>of pointer arithmetic.  The PL/I implementation with which I am
>most familiar relies on the operating system (not written in PL/I)
>for memory allocation, so provides no guidance.
>
>There is a problem with cross-posted topics.  The most I could do
>would be to pull this particular response from the PL/I group, but
>that would not stop all the other ones, and this reponse is the one
>that _should_ be relevant to PL/I.

But completely irrelevant to AWK.  And, yes, you personally cannot
ensure that I never see this crap in comp.lang.awk again, but if
everyone did as I ask, then the deed will be done.