Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!cognos!alzabo!omx!SteveX
From: SteveX@omx.UUCP (Steve Tibbett)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re:  What's Wrong with ARP!!!!
Message-ID: <SteveX.3234@omx.UUCP>
Date: 15 Dec 90 22:13:47 GMT
References: <2312@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca>
Lines: 30

>In article <2312@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca (Larry Phillips) writes:
>Certainly it's less dangerous, but I did name it the same. What if I had
>written a MOUNT that corrected a problem inherent in the CBM MOUNT, and called
>it MOUNT? Would I still get a flame for it? If I called it something other than
>MOUNT, it would njust mean that a lot of folks would rename it to MOUNT, just
>as anyone is free to rename any ARP program to something else. Personally,
>after DIR, LIST, and LS, I have a problem with attempting to come up with
>another meaningful name, should I actually want to keep some of the others
>around.

I'd flame you for it.

Two reasons...
	
	1: When I update my C: directory with a new set of C: commands,
	   your mount would be a special case that I'd have to copy back
	   on after every update (or I'd just have to call it something else)

	2: There is no way of knowing that your MOUNT will have all the
	   functionality of all future MOUNT's.  If your mount is called
	   LPMount or some other name, then I can use it specifically for
	   the things I can't use the CBM mount for.


If the user takes LPMount and calls it MOUNT, then he's asking for his
own trouble, not being given it by you.

--
   ...Steve Tibbett...bix=s.tibbett...Plink=STEVEX...BBS=613-731-3419...
              ...VirusX=4.01...Insert Disclaimer Here...