🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <46500061@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>I have been having a moderately heated (for Usenet, especially
>for comp.lang.c) discussion with Doug Gwyn about architectures
>(hardware or software) that prevent a given program from 
>accessing the same information as both code and data. The context of
>the discussion is that I want(ed) the ANSI C standard to REQUIRE
>that one be able to access a given object as both data and code.
>He seems to think that this is a "Bad Idea". I think it is not 
>only a "Good Idea", but that it is vitally important to some of my
>programs...

Without having seen the discussion, that I recall, I think Doug's views
are probably being misrepresented here.  What he probably was saying was
not that it's a bad idea, but that not all machines do it, and the ones
that do it often have private wrinkles in just how it should be done,
so *relying* on it is a bad idea.

Incremental compilation is clearly important for a general-purpose machine.
But not everybody realized that, and not everybody was originally trying
to build general-purpose machines.
-- 
Mars in 1980s:  USSR, 2 tries, |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
2 failures; USA, 0 tries.      | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu