Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!alberta!auvax!rwa
From: rwa@auvax.UUCP (Ross Alexander)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Variable function names
Summary: it's considered a bug...
Keywords: architecture
Message-ID: <456@auvax.UUCP>
Date: 16 Dec 87 22:51:37 GMT
References: <973@russell.STANFORD.EDU> <47000025@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> <3826@uw-june.UUCP>
Organization: Athabasca U., Alberta, Canada
Lines: 13

In article <3826@uw-june.UUCP>, pardo@uw-june.UUCP (David Keppel) writes:
> [ why don't all machines let us execute code stored in an array ]

Ouch!  Are people _still_ trying to do this sort of stuff?  In my undergrad
days, it was a well-known kluge that Honeywell Fortran (on the 6050) wasn't
too fussy about how you referenced external objects.  This let one declare an
integer array, stuff 'magic constants' == 'machine instructions' into it,
and then call it.  It did have its uses, but the whole idea makes me cringe
in retrospect.  It was poor practise then, and inexcusable now.

--
Ross Alexander @ Athabasca University,
alberta!auvax!rwa