Of my view that traditional base register-displacement coding idioms are, at best, obsolescent, Shmuel wrote
<begin extract> Nonsense; they're still needed for referring to data in dynamic storage. My general rule on such matters is that you have to cut the bird at the joints. </end extract> which remarks prompt me to two [rhetorical] questions. How much code is Shmuel in fact writing these days? Does he in fact understand the difference between the words 'obsolescent' and 'obsolete'? That there are exiguous residual uses for base registers may be conceded, although 'access to data in dynamic storage' is a very poor description of the principal one. Auden spoke of the privations of the poor, "to which they are fairly accustomed", and I am entirely accustomed to Shmuel's fulminations, which are largely predictable. I should not, however, wish other readers to take this one seriously. It is at once wrong and wrong-headed. John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
