Peter Donald wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:11, Stephen McConnell wrote:
> > 2. This has nothing to do what is at fault - its about necessity for
> > code to be hostile to that extent. I hapen to think that the level
> > of hostility is unnecessary.
> I tend to think that code that disposes of the same resource multiple
times is
> buggy and should be fixed. By forcing developer to write good code you end
up
> with better product in the end.
I agree with you, Peter, in part. The question, however, isn't neither
related to the presence of the bug nor the desirability of a fix. The sole
question is whether or not the bug is of such character that the platform
should *mandate* a fix. This recalls to the philosophy of "be flexible in
what you accept, strict in what you send."
Is there a reason why, if you can detect that the object is already been
disposed, that you must do more than generate a warning in the log when
disposing it again? You refer to "forcing the developer to write good code"
with something of an implication that if you don't force them, they won't.
Is this your a priori mindset towards peers?
This has social implications, too. Critically, there appears to have
developed a attitude of distrust here, where for 7 weeks people have been
wrangling over the PMC documents to close any loopholes because of implied
mistrust.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
