🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <b4mcD06KFb10108KelM@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> kevin@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Kevin Clague) writes:
>I had this multiple code bug in my code for a year and didn't even
>know it.  Once I found it, it took me a few days to shoot.  Looking back,
>I would prefer to have had a recoverable GURU rather than no report at
Agreed that for doing a library the guru is the good thing. 
I maintain that guru's should be avoided for non-computer types.
Well, ok, suppose we have a switch in the OS that determines 
whether you get the 'carry on' behavior or you get the GURU. 
Sort of an equivalent to loadwb -debug.
Default is to get 'carry on', so that potential customers
are not lost by the guru. I have seen people get really freaked
out even by the 'recoverable alert' type messages ("my pc never 
did that!"). But, if you were a developer type yourself, you run the
setguru program or something, and now you get a guru.
   Or is that too messy too? I don't know, i just know that 
1) Perfection is impossible, and
2) GURUs really turn people off. Customer-type people, i mean.
   people who might buy amigas and drive unit costs down.
ron