At 02:56 PM 10/16/2001 -0400, James Mastros wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Oct 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > We sort of do, if you treat string contents as a buffer of bytes rather
> > than characters. Raw memory sort of lives a step below the interpreter at
> > the moment, though I can see uses for that not being the case.
>Hm. So you're thinking that allocating n bytes should consist of creating
>a string with n characters. Reading would be:
>SUBSTR [dest S register], ["memory" S register], [address], [number of
>bytes to read]
><somehow convert from string to bunch-o-bytes (which makes us implicitly
>have the MSB first)>
That's one way to do it, sure. You can always look at a string as a bounded
byte buffer. One of the core 'string' types is "series of 8-bit bytes". We
couldn't manage JPEG images too well without that. ;)
Seriously, though, what are you trying to accomplish with providing generic
access to memory? Perhaps if you had a solid application in mind it'd make
working out what would be needed to support it easier.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
