On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > Huh? I can somewhat understand the "rebuild and forget" approach, > > especially in cases suitably experienced stuff was lost meanwhile. But if > > you start to fiddle with some old crap, you may equally well run > > 's/long/int/' within it, what's a deal. > > Eh? That's not even sort-of practical on an application of significant > size. It would be a nightmare. Oh yes, I tend to forget there are people who do not write clean software -- if the size of an object is critical e.g. for a system-independent binary data interface, there should be a data type for it defined in a single place somewhere. But who cares? "It's not me who'll have to fix it later, so why should I bother putting more effort into it." -- + Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +
