On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 09:33:41 -0700, Edward Jaffe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You've hit a "sore spot" with me. In my experience, anything (not just a >program) that starts out as a "One Off" or "Quick & Dirty" >implementation often has a way of eventually being used for daily, >production use. There's always time to do something over but never >enough time to do it right the first time. Part of my program development work frequently includes writing a "shell" program that is used solely for testing a module. Initial testing is usually done with such a shell program setting up a variety of conditions that the module can be expected to have to handle. It is far easier to test some code paths using such a test program than to test it entirely in it's native environment. These shell programs would never be expected to be used in production, and I seldom worry about them being reenterable or refreshable. > >Like others on this list, I write 99% reentrant code and believe that >non-reentrant programs and programming techniques should generally be >discouraged, _especially_ when working with less experienced >programmers. Of course, there are always exceptional cases in which >reentrancy can/should not be used. Ah, but there is that 1%. This discussion started with the statement, "There are now few if any---I can in fact think of no---circumstances in which it is excusable to write non-reentrant code." A sweeping statement of an absolute that some have taken exception to. I read your statement to disagree with it too. Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
