IBM says PL/I strings are limited - pl1

AS YOU WERE ALSO TOLD HERE, FUCKWIT!
"David Frank" <dave_frank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:w353f.13558$QE1.3538@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> David,
>
> All IBM PL/I compilers limit character (and bit) strings to a maximum
> length of 32767. But there are functions to move, compare, search etc
> buffers of up to 2G in size.
>
> - Peter
>
> Notes address: Peter Elderon/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
> Internet address: elderon@us.ibm.com
>
>
>
>
>

You mis-addressed below, it shud have in reply to any of about 20 messages
from maroon#1 who has yet to refute his
statement, "PL/I strings can be any length" but then you are intimated by
his superior intellect.

"Mark Yudkin" <myudkinATcompuserveDOTcom@boingboing.org> wrote in message
news:434f88c3$0$1161$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch...
> AS YOU WERE ALSO TOLD HERE, FUCKWIT!
> "David Frank" <dave_frank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:w353f.13558$QE1.3538@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> David,
>>
>> All IBM PL/I compilers limit character (and bit) strings to a maximum
>> length of 32767. But there are functions to move, compare, search etc
>> buffers of up to 2G in size.
>>
>> - Peter
>>
>> Notes address: Peter Elderon/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
>> Internet address: elderon@us.ibm.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

No. I addressed my response to you, as was absolutely clear from the
addressee identification (clearly specified after the comma). It is you who
have failed to understand that there is a distinction between the PL/I
language and the length restrictions imposed by the current IBM compilers,
and who has totally failed to understand Peter Elderon's clear indication of
just that fact in the post you even quote. And it's you who has failed to
understand the MEM* functions.

"David Frank" <dave_frank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:K7M3f.14670$q1.13154@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> You mis-addressed below, it shud have in reply to any of about 20 messages
> from maroon#1 who has yet to refute his
> statement, "PL/I strings can be any length" but then you are intimated
> by his superior intellect.
>
> "Mark Yudkin" <myudkinATcompuserveDOTcom@boingboing.org> wrote in message
> news:434f88c3$0$1161$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch...
>> AS YOU WERE ALSO TOLD HERE, FUCKWIT!
>> "David Frank" <dave_frank@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:w353f.13558$QE1.3538@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>> David,
>>>
>>> All IBM PL/I compilers limit character (and bit) strings to a maximum
>>> length of 32767. But there are functions to move, compare, search etc
>>> buffers of up to 2G in size.
>>>
>>> - Peter
>>>
>>> Notes address: Peter Elderon/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
>>> Internet address: elderon@us.ibm.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Mark Yudkin" <myudkinATcompuserveDOTcom@boingboing.org> wrote in message
news:435200a4$0$1146$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch...
> No. I addressed my response to you, as was absolutely clear from the
> addressee identification (clearly specified after the comma). It is you
> who have failed to understand that there is a distinction between the PL/I
> language and the length restrictions imposed by the current IBM compilers,
> and who has totally failed to understand Peter Elderon's clear indication
> of just that fact in the post you even quote. And it's you who has failed
> to understand the MEM* functions.

Sounds like the lyric to a old song, all you maroons can sing-along,
substituting "yes, have no bananas"
with "yes, pl/i has no long-strings"

http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/Humor.../NoBananas.htm

David Frank wrote:

(snip)

> Sounds like the lyric to a old song, all you maroons can sing-along,
> substituting "yes, have no bananas"
> with "yes, pl/i has no long-strings"

PL/I has longer varying length strings than Fortran.
For fixed length strings arrays of strings work just about as well.

What problem would you like to do with long strings?

-- glen

"glen herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:RNmdnePRqbnp187eRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> David Frank wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>> Sounds like the lyric to a old song, all you maroons can sing-along,
>> substituting "yes, have no bananas"
>> with "yes, pl/i has no long-strings"
>
> PL/I has longer varying length strings than Fortran.
> For fixed length strings arrays of strings work just about as well.
>
> What problem would you like to do with long strings?
>
> -- glen
>

I have re-posted CANT#16 several times with no translation, except for the
THEORETICAL multicsfan response.


16. CANT declare character variable with length = 50k
! ----------------------
program show_big_string_support
character(50000) :: big_string
big_string(50000-10 = 'Hello World'
write (*,*) big_string(50000-10
end program
Output: you guessed it!!

David Frank wrote in message ...
>
>"glen herrmannsfeldt" <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>news:RNmdnePRqbnp187eRVn-tw@comcast.com...

>> PL/I has longer varying length strings than Fortran.
>> For fixed length strings arrays of strings work just about as well.
>>
>> What problem would you like to do with long strings?
>>
>> -- glen

>I have re-posted CANT#16 several times with no translation,

A translation was posted.

> except for the THEORETICAL multicsfan response.
>
>16. CANT declare character variable with length = 50k
> ! ----------------------
> program show_big_string_support
> character(50000) :: big_string
> big_string(50000-10 = 'Hello World'
> write (*,*) big_string(50000-10
> end program
>Output: you guessed it!!

I posted a compiled segment a while back, containing this declaration:

dcl big_string character (50000);

"robin" <robin_v@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:ONW4f.20732$U51.9001@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> I posted a compiled segment a while back, containing this declaration:
>
> dcl big_string character (50000);
>

Folks just ignore the ELIZABOT reply
for the simple reason he refuses to post a CANT#16 solution, (never has,
never will)

David Frank wrote in message ...
>
>"robin" <robin_v@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>news:ONW4f.20732$U51.9001@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>
>> I posted a compiled segment a while back, containing this declaration:
>>
>> dcl big_string character (50000);
>
>Folks just ignore the ELIZABOT reply
>for the simple reason he refuses to post a CANT#16 solution, (never has,

You're not telling the truth again, in spite of my refreshing your
memory that one was posted.