Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!tness7!tness1!sugar!peter
From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: AREXX the low/medium level standard - NEXT THE HIGH LEVEL
Message-ID: <1807@sugar.UUCP>
Date: 9 Apr 88 19:13:19 GMT
References: <8804071832.AA04321@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX
Lines: 24

In article ... dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP writes:
> >I must take exception to this statement. I am the originator of the current
> >IFF-based approach, and I'd like to point out that it does not require
> >any parsing whatsoever. It has an array of tagged pointers which can be
> >"parsed" in a few statements...

> 	How do you represent a complete IFF structure?  With LIST's, CAT's
> etc....  The idea is to have the IPC library handle the dirty work of doing
> this.

I *don't* represent a complete IFF structure. All I'm taking from IFF is the
4-byte "packed" ids. I suppose I could define a 'MORE' item that points to
another Item array, but I'm not sure why you'd want to.

One of the advantages of IFF is that if you don't understand a chunk, you
can ignore it. Similarly, if you don't understand a tag in an Item array
you can ignore it and go on to the next one.

	...
	default: break;
	...
-- 
-- Peter da Silva  `-_-'  ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter
-- Disclaimer: These U aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.