home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.cobol
- Path: sparky!uunet!sequent!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU!reed!batcomputer!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!munnari.oz.au!cs.mu.OZ.AU!munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU!fjh
- From: fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus James HENDERSON)
- Subject: Re: cobol
- Message-ID: <9302702.19795@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>
- Sender: news@cs.mu.OZ.AU
- Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
- References: <1993Jan13.4605.763@dosgate> <1jm43fINN8rv@mirror.digex.com> <1993Jan21.133510.4271@mfltd.co.uk> <9302421.22722@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <1993Jan25.120413.24471@mfltd.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:21:31 GMT
- Lines: 16
-
- jfid@mfltd.co.uk (James Fidell (x5320)) writes:
-
- >Pointers are another area
- >where C benefits greatly -- I really wouldn't want to try to implement a
- >parse tree in COBOL.
-
- Well now that you mention it I *have* done that :-), though only for a
- quite simple grammar.
- You can use array indices instead of pointers without *too* much difficulty.
- The real gripe I have is with the lack of dynamic allocation.
-
- --
- Fergus Henderson fjh@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU
- This .signature virus is a self-referential statement that is true - but
- you will only be able to consistently believe it if you copy it to your own
- .signature file!
-