At 7/30/2006 09:12 AM, John Gilmore wrote:
My favorite---storm warning of a big word to come---is their
notional usefulness in avoiding homoeoteleutera; but others may well
have their own, different favorites.
Google User: "define: homoeoteleutera"
Google (paraphrasing here): "Huh?"
www.onelook.com user: "homoeoteleutera"
www.onelook.com: "Huh?"
Looks to me, John, like you've hit a home run here...
At 7/30/2006 09:12 AM, John Gilmore wrote:
The triviality of this issue is, however, convenient in one way. It
provides an occasion for noting that clinging to a piece of obsolete
technology that we know and love, a high resolve to go on using it
until it is pried from our lifeless fingers, is dysfunctional.
Such passion, John! It leaves me all aflutter...
My opinion, FWIW: Whether or not sequence numbers are useful depends
upon whether or not you are willing to find a use for them.
In my own work, I use an update process that depends upon sequence
numbers. It's all real ryo; but nevertheless, it is pretty good at
allowing multiple developers to work in the same csects, and even in
the same subroutines, without locking each other out, and with only a
minimal chance of interfering with each other.
Are there other ways to do this? Of course. Are they better? Maybe.
Probably depends up what you value.
Dave Cole REPLY TO: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cole Software WEB PAGE: http://www.colesoft.com
736 Fox Hollow Road VOICE: 540-456-8536
Afton, VA 22920 FAX: 540-456-6658
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
