I hope you didn't think I was being critical, I wasn't intending
that at all.
I really appreciate your and Lance's time and effort here, as well
as anything else that comes out of this.
I'm not sure that GET is limited,
(I sure do not remember that GET was limited to 32K, but I'll take your word for it.)
is going after a record by number, defined one way or another I'd suppose!
I've never tried to define a record whose length was ever even close to
that 32767 bytes before now. I have no idea what would happen if you
even tried to OPEN for RANDOM with a length beyond 32767 at all! In that
way, and by using multiple strings in the FIELD statement, you might be
able to exceed that size for all I know. But, so seems, you can't do it
in the use of a pure single string defintion.
Looking at the bigger problem of pattern matching coyly here. Even 32767
bytes of 'grab me' at a time is only some 370+ patterns of 88 bytes to look
at from a brute force viewpoint. Thus, one wonders if the finished product
of the Snoopie's (sic!) art, is really a binary list that delivers a
million 88 byte pattern match filtering in a minute?
Code:
\ / (!) @ @
------------------
Mike Luther
[email protected]
Leave a comment: