In
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
on 10/27/2006
at 07:47 AM, Peter Relson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I am afraid that we have now devolved to semantics.
Essentially any technical discussion devolves to semantics. Only in
marketing and politics do they avoid semantics :-(
What you need to do in order to ensure that a program runs correctly
is "only" semantics, but the guy who is depending on the program
considers those semantics to be important.
>If your design is that a program when refreshed reverts to its
>original behavior, that might not be thought of as a great design,
I though that Binyamin Dissen's example was quite elegant.
>even if the ramifications of reverting might be tiny..
If the ramifications of reverting are less than the overhead of
writing the program some other way, then there might be cases where it
is actually desirable to write refreshable code that is not R/O. I
admit that I would probably not do so myself, but that's more of a
prejudice than a reasoned judgement.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
