Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!pdxgate!eecs!jayward From: jayward@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Jay Ward) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Short Hello World Message-ID: <2678@pdxgate.UUCP> Date: 20 May 91 20:20:58 GMT Article-I.D.: pdxgate.2678 References: <1991May18.172039.7477@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> Sender: news@pdxgate.UUCP Lines: 24 riley@THEORY.TC.CORNELL.EDU (Daniel S. Riley) writes: >What should CBM do with the LVOs for deleted functions? >I'd be in favor of CBM eventually deleting unused functions. I'd be >opposed to CBM reusing those LVOs--reassigning LVOs would just lead to >massive confusion--in which case deleted functions would continue to >take up some space in the jump tables. We're missing the point here totally... I've heard it preached up and down here on the net: 'Follow the rules! If you follow the rules you won't get burned'. So now what do we want to do? Trash all of the routines that we shouldn't be using today, but were perfectly legal in yesteryear. Is this the ultimate form of corporate hippocracy, or am I missing something? Someone please enlighten me. >-Dan Riley (riley@theory.tn.cornell.edu, cornell!batcomputer!riley) >-Wilson Lab, Cornell University ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jay Ward --> jayward@eecs.cs.pdx.edu | Down : Seattle, Utah Live from the Rip City! | To Go: L.A., Eastern Conf. Champs. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------