XPost: comp.theory, comp.lang.c++   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 11/24/2025 10:32 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   > On 2025-11-24, olcott  wrote:   
   >> On 11/22/2025 11:24 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> That's just the thing! If this were correctly implemented then in fact   
   >>> DD /wold be/ calling HHH1, using the name HHH.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> You are trying to get away with this lie   
   >> about the semantics of C?   
   >>   
   >> int main()   
   >> {   
   >>     HHH(DD);   
   >>     HHH1(DD);   
   >>     return 0;   
   >> }   
   >>   
   >> _main()   
   >> [000022c4] 55             push ebp   
   >> [000022c5] 8bec           mov ebp,esp   
   >> [000022c7] 6834220000     push 00002234 ; push DD   
   >> [000022cc] e833f3ffff     call 00001604 ; call HHH   
   >> [000022d1] 83c404         add esp,+04   
   >> [000022d4] 6834220000     push 00002234 ; push DD   
   >> [000022d9] e856f2ffff     call 00001534 ; call HHH1   
   >> [000022de] 83c404         add esp,+04   
   >> [000022e1] 33c0           xor eax,eax   
   >> [000022e3] 5d             pop ebp   
   >> [000022e4] c3             ret   
   >> Size in bytes:(0033) [000022e4]   
   >   
   > That's right; even if HHH and HHH1 are separately realized and given   
   > different adddresses, not recognized as identical by the compiler and   
   > not folded into one copy, in a correct implementation of your software,   
   > HHH(DD) and HHH1(DD) would behave as indistinguishable, mutually   
   > interchangeable operations.   
   >   
      
   Except when their input calls themself.   
   In this case they must simulate themselves   
   simulating their input, not just simulate   
   their input.   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)