I prefer the PL/I solution,  does not specify how they are  implementedrr, only 
how they behave. Other languages, e.g., Icon, Perl, do the same thig.

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz

From: IBM Mainframe Assembler List <ASSEMBLER-LIST@listserv.uga.edu> on behalf 
of Rob van der Heij <rvdh...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 9:41 AM
To: ASSEMBLER-LIST@listserv.uga.edu
Subject: Re: Pascal

On 2 February 2018 at 14:28, Martin Ward <mar...@gkc.org.uk> wrote:

> Incidentally, perl strings can be over 4GB in length: in fact,
> any size which will will fit in memory (including swap space).

Just don't let the ASN.1 folks come closer, or you end up with variable
length length fields... ;-)

I would think that when things get long enough, the requirement for
consecutive storage of the characters would be restrictive. Implementing a
string as a series of (address,length) pairs would solve that, and would
also make for elegant string concatenation.
Considering that most strings are less than 4GB, I would be tempted to
maybe use negative length to imply the extra indirection, and use positive
length for characters following the length. If functions return such
strings, you'd need a garbage collector as well... sigh.


Reply via email to