🚀 go-pugleaf

Hmmm... think about this as well...

	dat #5, #5
	dat #0, #0
start	pct 0
	mov -3, <-1
	mov -4, <-2
	end start

Ok, the instruction if "start" is first protected, and will last for one
modification attempt.  Then the "mov -3, <-1" is executed.  Since there is
a predecrement in the B-Field and it is on a protected field, it will fail
and the protection is removed from the address "start".  This means that
the effective address of "<-1" turns out to be 0 instead of -1, had the
predecrement been successful.  Well, now the mov instructions is evaluated.
"mov -3, -1 (essentially)" (would have been "mov -3, -2 if predec was good)
then grabs the "dat #5, #5" and overwrites the "pct 0" instruction.  

So, what I am saying is this... you can first unprotect an instruction with
a predecrement or postincrement (yes, I have them too) and then overwrite
them with the same instruction.  Is this good?

(If you haven't notice, I do advocate the PCT instruction.  Give me a good
reason why not to have it... "Too powerful" is not a good execuse judging 
from the above example!)

Scott
-- 
         Scott W. Adkins           Internet: sadkins@ohiou.edu
         ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                     ak323@cleveland.freenet.edu
    Ohio University of Athens        Bitnet: adkins@ouaccvma.bitnet