> >I agree, I thought you had been specifically talking about >variable type >changes. >
Yes, I was talking more about the general principles than that specific example. >> Yes, but in the case of NASA I'd bet that the standard is >well documented >> and that they have procedures in place to ensure that it is followed. > >Agreed. That doesn't mean I'm going to write my code less >strictly just >because management may fail at verifying that procedures had been >followed. That's why all programmers if they don't have a set >procedure >that needs to be followed, to create one and follow it strictly. I don't expect you to and I don't expect anyone that has a set procedure will deliberately fail to follow it unless there are more fundamental problems with the management or development team. I'm more concerned about inadvertent errors, what other people will do with my code, and what I'm going to do when I have to work on code that has passed through the hands of a number of developers. It's thinking about those scenarios that tends to influence my decisions on how to write code because that's the type of work I most often end up doing. Whether the same approach is appropriate for everyone else is another question entirely. Spike ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' in the message of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by Mindtool, Corporation (www.mindtool.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
