Newsgroups: comp.text.tex
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!phage!monardo
From: monardo@cshl.org (Pat Monardo)
Subject: Re: Redesigning TeX (was: Why use TeX if ...)
Message-ID: <1991May18.223354.16681@cshl.org>
Sender: news@cshl.org (NO MAIL)
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
References: <unhcopy@dce.ie> <1991May17.033542.29841@cshl.org> <TIM.91May18144500@kahlo.cstr.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 18 May 91 22:33:54 GMT

In article <TIM.91May18144500@kahlo.cstr.ed.ac.uk> tim@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Tim Bradshaw) writes:
>>>>>> On 17 May 91 03:35:42 GMT, monardo@cshl.org (Pat Monardo) said:
>
> [ In response to a previous post saying that the 256 register limit
>   is a pain ]
>
>> would you like 4 billion registers? thats possible.
>
>Does Common TeX do this?  The allocations of anything ought to be
>limited by the machine's VM or address space, and it sounds like
>that's what you're hinting at.
>
>--tim

close. it would take some modification. there is also the
issue of the magic number 255. what could happen is we could
remove the limitations of registers but hint that registers
0-255 are "root" registers. but i dont really think its that
critical an issue. if you are asking if Common TeX uses
normal C addressing conventions for most data, then the answer is yes.

