Re: Comparing Access Types

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Jere" <jhb.chat@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:0e68d62f-6e81-4f48-998f-cccdb4c650a1@googlegroups.com...
...
> I may not understand, but I don't see this as any issue.  Even when 
> physical
> memory is split into pages, banks, segments, etc., it can be organized 
> into
> unique locations.  I'm not suggesting that access values need to map 
> directly
> to memory addresses but it seems odd that an access type, which holds some
> unique information about an object, cannot be ordered in some fashion.

Flattening segmented memory would be expensive to implement (in general 
requiring expensive protected system calls) and it doesn't seem useful (as 
Bob noted), especially if something is moving objects around.

                            Randy.