Xref: utzoo comp.arch:10565 comp.lang.misc:3060
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!rochester!cornell!vax5!z8my
From: z8my@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.misc
Subject: Design philosophy (was Dbl Width Int Mult and Div.)
Summary: Herman Rubin wants one thing, nearly everyone else wants another
Message-ID: <18965@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU>
Date: 9 Jul 89 21:32:34 GMT
References: <57125@linus.UUCP> <1989Jun24.230056.27774@utzoo.uucp> <4909@ficc.uu.net> <1399@l.cc.purdue.edu>
Sender: news@vax5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU
Reply-To: z8my@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Samuel Paik)
Organization: XYNE knowledge structures
Lines: 11

It seems to me, and has been pointed out before, that Herman Rubin of Purdue
wants a language, or a language construct to allow him to include non-port-
able commands that compile to some specific, machine-dependent code.

Unfortunately for him, nearly everyone else in comp.arch (I don't read
cop.lang.misc) feels that portability is more important.

So can we end this endless argument?

Sam Paik
d65y@vax5.cit.cornell.edu