Yes. Linked lists are both possible and easy, with your "store" and "reference" pointer idea, provided there is a standard (ie. inbuilt) "procedure" to swap two "store" pointers. I think that's all you need to overcome the problem with linked lists. Also, note that if either or both "store" pointers has any "reference" pointers associated with it, these "reference" pointers must still point at the same objects after the "store" pointer swap, as they did prior to the swap. Finally, some suggestions on nomenclature and syntax ... 1. I wonder if the words "store" and "reference" are complementary? How about "primary" and "secondary" instead? Or something else? This is subjective, but I'm not sure if the word "store" would "read" very well in the following suggested syntax (looks too much like a verb;-) : 2. Syntax suggestion : Type pointer1 = ^integer; {a standard pointer} pointer2 = primary ^integer; {a "store" pointer} pointer3 = secondary ^integer; {a "reference" pointer} Joe.

-----Original Message----- From: Markus Gerwinski [SMTP:markus@gerwinski.de] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 2:53 AM To: da Silva, Joe Cc: 'gpc@gnu.de' Subject: Re: pointers (was: gcc-3+)

Hi folks,

da Silva, Joe wrote:

...

All you need is a standard (ie. inbuilt) procedure/statement that can swap two store pointers ... I think.

You mean, for linked lists?

Bye

Markus