Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!adm!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Answers, Chapter 1: TeX
Message-ID: <6555:Nov720:35:2690@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 7 Nov 90 20:35:26 GMT
References: <7456:Nov620:54:4090@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <5093@lanl.gov>
Organization: IR
Lines: 23

In article <5093@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> From article <7456:Nov620:54:4090@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, by brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein):
> > In article <5077@lanl.gov> jlg@lanl.gov (Jim Giles) writes:
> > [...]
> >> Not if the information in the .h file _doesn't_match_ the definition
> >> of the corresponding routines in the .c file.
> > In which case the error will be detected at *compile time*, when the
> > compiler gets around to that .c file. I stand by my statement.
> Oh, now you've eliminated separate compilation.

You are babbling.

Do you think that the Ada package model is entirely misconceived? I
thought you liked Ada.

> Mistakes happen, the .h file may not match
> the code which generated the .o file (you haven't got the .c file).

Yes, and when code has bugs, you fix the code. You don't rewrite your
compiler and loader to use some idiotic replacement for the concept of a
package.

---Dan