From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,34872f3f22b5b140 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-11-11 05:46:32 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Suggestion for gnatstub Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 08:46:02 -0500 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: References: <3dcb9e51$0$303$bed64819@news.gradwell.net> <3DCBC4C9.AD436CD9@earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.b3.8d X-Server-Date: 11 Nov 2002 13:46:31 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:30723 Date: 2002-11-11T13:46:31+00:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff 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] ======================================================================