>>Hi Arnon,
>>
>>I understand what you are saying, but I do not understand how this approach gets me away from DO/ENDDO processing. It would seem to me that DO/ENDDO would still be required due to the variable-length nature of the linked list. Is there something I'm missing here?
>
>You still need the DO..ENDDO or some other loop for implementing pushing the message - but what I suggested has less overhead than redimensioning the array as you go along etc.
>You could implement a pullling mechanism - but how to do it and what cost it has (in resources etc.) depends on what you do
>
>Arnon

OK, I just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.

Thanks for the advice.

regards,