|
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, May 23 2012 @ 12:14 AM EDT |
> If the claim says "contains", then the symbolic reference
> must be within the instruction. A numeric reference to a
> symbolic reference is NOT the same thing.
This logic holds only if we use a claim construction that says the symbolic
reference must be the literal string. Then yes a pointer to the symbolic
reference is not the same thing.
But what if we use a construction where a pointer to the literal string also
counts as a symbolic reference? Then the instruction could contain the pointer
and still contain a symbolic reference.
The very notion that the symbolic reference must be the literal string is what
is considered unclear. In these circumstance you can't use the fact that the
pointer is not a literal string to argue the pointer is not a symbolic
reference. This would presuppose what must be proved.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|