Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!mucs!r4!mshute
From: mshute@r4.uucp (Malcolm Shute)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Paper tape vs card structuring
Message-ID: <997@m1.cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: 23 Feb 90 10:38:18 GMT
References: <1656@aber-cs.UUCP>
Sender: news@cs.man.ac.uk
Reply-To: mshute@r4.UUCP (Malcolm Shute)
Organization: University of Manchester, UK
Lines: 15

In article <1656@aber-cs.UUCP> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
>  In article <1639@aber-cs.UUCP> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
>  >[...] the difference between encoded (paper tape) and structural
>  >(card deck) representations of data [...]
>The use of combinators means that the structural relationships
>among parts of the program are encoded in the program, not out-of-band.
>
>Frankly I am hard pressed to think of an architecture that is really
>encoded. [...]

Presumably, an architecture which supports only S and K combinators in
its instruction set (plus a few luxuries like I,B,C,+,- and integers)
would, by your definition, be such an example.

Malcolm SHUTE.         (The AM Mollusc:   v_@_ )        Disclaimer: all