Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!sun-barr!ames!purdue!haven!vrdxhq!bms-at!stuart
From: stuart@bms-at.UUCP (Stuart Gathman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.pascal
Subject: Re: Standard Pascal
Summary: Ridiculous!
Message-ID: <168@bms-at.UUCP>
Date: 15 Jul 89 01:13:30 GMT
References: <8736@pyr.gatech.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Business Management Systems, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Lines: 50

In article <8736@pyr.gatech.EDU>, gus@pyr.gatech.EDU (gus Baird) writes:
> No! There's a TREMENDOUS difference between

>     repeat 
> 	read(FileVar,ch)
>     until ch {is whatever};

> and

>     while FileVar^ {is not whatever} do
> 	get(input);

> The point is that that the version with read consumes the character 
> that stops the loop.  This means that the routine after the skiptill 

So in one case the terminating char is in "Filevar^", and in the
other case it is in "ch".  Big deal.

	while FileVar^ {is not whatever) do
	  get(input);

is just

	var
	  FileVar: ^byte;

	read(input,FileVar^);

	. . .

	while FileVar^ { ... } do
	  read(input,FileVar^);


If pascal had macros, you could either in terms of the other.  The pointer
stuff is a bother.  The file variable stuff is just a convention as
to where your one character read ahead is kept.  Using "ch" as a convention
is just as good as using "FileVar^", and more efficient to boot.
(I prefer "unget(ch)" myself :-)

BTW,  Shouldn't "get(input)" be "get(FileVar)"?  In that case get and put
are even more braindamaged with such an inconsistent use of pointer notation.
They could still be macros, however.  FileVar would be

#define	FileVar	F.buf	{ excuse me }

and get could find the 'F' record address from the pointer address.
-- 
Stuart D. Gathman	<stuart@bms-at.uucp>
			<..!{vrdxhq|daitc}!bms-at!stuart>