🚀 go-pugleaf

In <5077@amiga.UUCP>, jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) writes:

[ description of how the Gadget MutualExclude field will be used in 1.4 ...]

I would like to go on record as saying that I'm perfectly happy with the way
things will go with regard to this field, and can think of no better way for it
to be handled.

During this discussion, I received some email from a long-time net.denizen
whose opinions I tend to respect, warning me that my position could possibly
have some bad side effects.  He said (paraphrased):

> your arguments may well lead other gullible programmers to make the same
> mistake you advocate, programming in other areas.

I would like to go on record as saying that I _do_ advocate following the rules,
and that I do not advocate the use of system fields for one's own use. This
position has been reinforced (for me) by these discussions, and I hope it has
been reinforced for others reading it as well. I saw the MutualExclude thing as
somewhat of an exception, because of the documentation, and because it never
occurred to me that MutualExclude might be implemented in a completely
different way.

If there are any programmers who interpret Jim Mackraz's article as sanctioning
use of the MutualExclude field for implementing your own mutual exclude, I
would point out that the opposite is true, and that you should probably do it
by using the 'user' fields, either directly or throuh a pointer to your own
struct.

>Sure do love them Gadgets!  That's why I keep rewriting them ...

Yeah!

>	    jimm

-larry

--
" All I ask of my body is that it carry around my head."
         - Thomas Alva Edison -
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ 
|   //   Larry Phillips                                                 |
| \X/    lphillips@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca -or- uunet!van-bc!lpami!lphillips |
|        COMPUSERVE: 76703,4322  -or-  76703.4322@compuserve.com        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+