Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!crdgw1!davidsen From: davidsen@crdgw1.crd.ge.com (William E. Davidsen Jr) Newsgroups: news.software.b Subject: Re: TMNN development (Was: Comments on C news) Message-ID: <1094@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> Date: 3 Jul 89 20:22:21 GMT References: <2228@vicom.COM> <1989Jun20.211939.7835@utzoo.uucp> <940@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> Reply-To: davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) Organization: General Electric CRD, Schenectady, NY Lines: 20 In article ambar@bloom-beacon.mit.edu (Jean Marie Diaz) writes: | Beg pardon. TMNN is NOT going through a major revision (which, to me, | implies some redesign and/or new features). It is going through a badly | needed major debugging. Our mantra through the whole process has been | "No New Features!" I guess we use the term differently. I am using revise to mean "change". If you do the same thing another way or a new thing, the chances of having a program exhibit unexpected behavior seems proportional to the number of changed lines. You previously posted a note about the many bugs you were fixing, that implies a lower confidence level to me. Of course I'm mortal, and even when I write perfectly legal code it breaks on buggy compilers. It would be nice if it still worked on SysV and 16 bit machines after it's "debugged." -- - bill davidsen (davidsen@crdgw1.uucp) GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8, KW-C206; Schenectady NY 12345