Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:12280 comp.arch:6216
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!super!rminnich
From: rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.arch
Subject: Re: one large array in Pascal
Message-ID: <681@super.ORG>
Date: 31 Aug 88 20:03:33 GMT
References: <5262@june.cs.washington.edu> <260@thor.wright.EDU> <479@m3.mfci.UUCP> <36174@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <1268@mcgill-vision.UUCP> <3868@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu> <4998@claris.UUCP> <IWM.88Aug30095804@asun3.ic.ac.uk>
Sender: uucp@super.ORG
Reply-To: rminnich@metropolis.UUCP (Ronald G Minnich)
Organization: Supercomputing Research Center, Lanham, MD
Lines: 15

In article <IWM.88Aug30095804@asun3.ic.ac.uk> iwm@asun3.ic.ac.uk (Ian Moor) writes:
>At least one early Pascal compiler did not implement  `dispose',
>instead there were `mark' and `free' which treated the heap like a stack,
ah, pascal.
So portable, except everybody had a slightly different IO system, 
esp. with the interpretation of eol and eof. (berkeley pascal will 
still kill you if you test eol when eof is true).
And, of course, everybody did one of 2 1/2 storage system types, 
so that you did not use any dynamic storage if you wanted your
program to be portable. 
Gosh, brings back the good ol' days doesn't it? 
   There are lots of little holes like that in Pascal, which may
explain the coding style of TeX. Within limits- no I/O, no dynamic memory, 
etc.- a real portable language.
ron