🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5926@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>Doug's now posted several of my prior messages and made
>illogical inferences from them, following exactly this
>fallacy:  he and everyone else seems to ignore the
>subjunctive clause "if the implementor claims..."

No, I haven't ignored that because you didn't use that qualifier
in (most of) the cases I quoted.

However, if we are to believe your current assertion that you
were only discussing what would be true when some implementor
claims to be literally implementing the abstract C machine,
then we should ask what is the point of your wasting our time
posting about such an empty subject.  There is no implementor
dumb enough to attempt to make such a claim, because there is
no actual computer architecture for which such a project could
be accomplished.  For real architectures, some degree of
non-trivial (i.e. not one-to-one) translation between the
abstract machine operations and executable code is a necessity.