On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Huh? I can somewhat understand the "rebuild and forget" approach,
> > especially in cases suitably experienced stuff was lost meanwhile. But if
> > you start to fiddle with some old crap, you may equally well run
> > 's/long/int/' within it, what's a deal.
>
> Eh? That's not even sort-of practical on an application of significant
> size. It would be a nightmare.
Oh yes, I tend to forget there are people who do not write clean software
-- if the size of an object is critical e.g. for a system-independent
binary data interface, there should be a data type for it defined in a
single place somewhere. But who cares? "It's not me who'll have to fix
it later, so why should I bother putting more effort into it."
--
+ Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland +
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
+ e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +
|