Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!labrea!agate!pasteur!ames!hao!dinl!hull From: hull@dinl.uucp (Jeff Hull) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Question Re: Configuration Management Keywords: configuration management, software design Message-ID: <188@dinl.mmc.UUCP> Date: 18 Feb 88 00:15:31 GMT References: <497@aimt.UUCP> <2640@ihlpe.ATT.COM> Reply-To: hull@dinl.UUCP (Jeff Hull) Organization: Martin Marietta I&CS, Denver CO. Lines: 22 You do run into some problems when you need to update one procedure in a multi-procedure file. Tracking exactly what changed and why is one such problem. (This one is typically handled via comments embedded in the source code; not an elegant solution, in my opinion.) When you are controlling documentation, the multiple "procedures" in one file approach drives you to send out updates that include many more change pages that would otherwise be necessary, for example. There are other problems that require mucho context definition to explain. Why would you (ever) want to put more than one "procedure" in a file anyway. Now that we have and similar utilities, it is very simple to (re-)compile programs contained in many files, so why not put one procedure in one file? -- Jeff Hull ...!hao!dinl!hull 1544 S. Vaughn Circle 303-750-3538 It was great when it all begaaaaan, Aurora, CO 80012 I was a regular faaaan, ....