Re: Suggestion for gnatstub

["Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org>]

Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:wcc65v5maiv.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com...
>
> To me, "null;" means "this procedure does nothing".  You're suggesting
> to overload it to also mean "I haven't gotten around to writing this
> procedure yet".
>
I can't think of too many other reasons to write a null procedure. If it was
going to stay null forever, then why have it at all. Seems like the
mechanism is there so you can have a procedure waiting for the programmer to
find the elusive Round Tuit. :-)


>
> I don't normally use that style, because when the thing crashes, you
> have to expend energy debugging whether it's a "real" bug (in the grand
> overview code) versus a "stub" that is generating bogus data, and then
> the grand code is tripping over it.
>
Well, everybody has different styles and sometimes its a matter of what is
appropriate for the application at hand. Sometimes writing a bunch of test
drivers is the way to go. Sometimes maybe one should just fill in all the
code and get staarted testing the thing in one big gigantic thrust. But I
think you can see that lots of things get built in iterative builds where
some portion of the system remains as stubs to be filled in at a later time.


>
> Hmm.  If I'm *using* the program *you* write, I just hope the reason you
> "aren't concerned about potential safety issues" is that you've solved
> them some other way.  Too many programmers "aren't concerned ..." due to
> sloppiness.  ;-)
>
Chances are, you might have if you've ever strapped an F22 or JSF fighter to
your back and gone for a ride. :-) The process we use for building engine
controls for such creatures includes too many audits to think it is possible
to get a null procedure or function through into production unless you
really meant to do that. If such a problem could get through that far, I'd
have even more fear and trembling about getting through a stub that
contained an exception in it. An incorrect function return *might* allow the
control to continue operating but an exception would throw it straight into
a reboot. That could be "bad". :-)


> Having said all that, I admit none of this is a big deal.
>
Sure. If its a switch selectable thing, you can use whichever approach makes
more sense for the situation at hand.

MDC
--
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jast.mil/

Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g

    "I'd trade it all for just a little more"
        --  Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10]
======================================================================