Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!oberon!cit-vax!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!decvax!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Types
Message-ID: <2472@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Oct-87 16:17:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.2472
Posted: Fri Oct  9 16:17:49 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 12-Oct-87 21:48:23 EDT
References: <7264@brl-adm.ARPA> <734@sdchema.sdchem.UUCP> <293@osupyr.UUCP> <366@mcdsun.UUCP> <899@mcgill-vision.UUCP> <384@mcdsun.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT.
Lines: 19

In article <384@mcdsun.UUCP> fnf@mcdsun.UUCP (Fred Fish) writes:
>3.	Now the only choice is to decide which default you want.
>	For my implementation, it was obvious that near jumps were
>	the correct default.  For another situation, the reverse
>	might be true.  I don't claim that either is somehow
>	theoretically "better".  (Someone else might care to claim
>	so though, don't let me stop you... :-)

It seems like the near jumps are the correct choice, since they take less
space.  This is not a fantastically important consideration, but I don't see
any other considerations whatsoever.

It does not seem like an accidental property of the architecture that the
near jumps are shorter than the far ones; if they aren't shorter, why have
them?
-- 

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Ashton-Tate          52 Oakland Ave North         E. Hartford, CT 06108