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