They can and they do (and they shouldn't). It seems to me that there has been a strong cultural bias against encapsulation (or structured code in general). The irony is that even the Pentium chip supports protection rings (and MUMPS is supposed to be a high level language)!
--- James Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I may be misunderstanding something, but isn't the main problem that > there > is no way to force encapsulation in Mumps. Even if developers create > well > designed public entry points/API's for a package, it is always > possible for > a Mumps programmer to bypass the official method for using the entry > points > for a package. It seems the problem is inherent to Mumps, not VistA. > Jim Gray > A practical man is a man who practices the errors of his forefathers. --Benjamin Disraeli ==== Greg Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: GoToMeeting - the easiest way to collaborate online with coworkers and clients while avoiding the high cost of travel and communications. There is no equipment to buy and you can meet as often as you want. Try it free.http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7402&alloc_id=16135&op=click _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
