Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!bu-cs!mirror!francis
From: francis@mirror.UUCP (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: How to Argue Technical Points (was Re: Tail patches)
Message-ID: <33413@mirror.UUCP>
Date: 29 Nov 89 16:47:00 GMT
References: <5432@internal.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: francis@prism.TMC.COM (Joe Francis)
Organization: Mirror Systems, Cambridge Mass.
Lines: 25

Paul, a while ago I was reading this thread to learn about the risks of
Tail Patching.  I do not know that I read it from the very beginning and
we purge old News here, so I may have missed something.

I am interested in the technical liabilities of tail patching.  I am NOT
interested in being told not to tail patch (it's not that I will ignore
such a warning; it's that the information I want is not whether or not to, 
but why not to).

I have read and understand the explanation of the dangers tail patching
poses with respect to Apple fixes to routines which check to see who
calls them.  

However, many articles ago you said that there were numerous subtle
reasons not to tail patch.  None of the notes I have read refer to these
other reasons, and I would very much like to hear about ANY of them.

Thanks,
Joe Francis

------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM
EMAIL to:					"Nobody Expects the 
francis@mirror.TMC.COM			 	 Spamish Repitition!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------