Why don't we "jump" to the underlying notion of the "jump" instructions, or more accurately "branch relative" instructions, which is relative addressing: "relative address oriented programming".
I'll admit that it's not concise, but I'm optimistic we won't have a religious war about the resulting acronym. -- Regards, Gord Tomlin Action Software International (a division of Mazda Computer Corporation) Tel: (905) 470-7113, Fax: (905) 470-6507 On 2012-06-17 09:05, John Gilmore wrote:
Words can of course have different specialized meanings in different contexts, but there is ordinarily an evolutionary path between these meanings. Physicians, for example, talk of "senile changes", meaning those associated with aging, in a way that is entirely devoid of pejorative intent. Or again, Chaucer and his contemporaries used the word "lewd" to mean lay, not in holy orders; but there is a path between this meaning and the modern one: the clergy did not often make what we call lewd gestures in public. I myself find 'baseless' very unsatisfactory, in part because it is not at all transparent. Thus, while I have no emotional investment in the term "jump-based", I do believe a new one is needed; 'baseless' can scarcely avoid connotations of dispensability when in fact it is the base registers that are largely dispensable. We need to look forward to a time when the use of base registers, multiple ones in particular, and the arbitrary segmentation of code into 4096-byte pieces will be perceived as a quaint, historically interesting but obsolete practices; and a new contrasting term will be helpful in changing the current "vulgar" mind set. (Mr Gilmartin's use of vulgar, which evolved from the Latin phrase "mobile vulgus", is open to criticism; but that is a subject for another time and place.) Alternative suggestions? John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
