On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Mark Miesfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Rick McGuire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The exercise of writing test cases for the various APIs was an
>> interesting process, as it gave me the opportunity to reassess whether
>> APIs
---09/26/2008 11:54:37 AM---The exercise of writing test
>> cases for the various APIs was an
>>
>> "Rick McGuire" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> 09/26/2008 09:40 AM
>>
>> Please respond to
>> Open Object Rexx Developer Mailing List
>&
Mailing List
>
> To
> "Open Object Rexx Developer Mailing List"
>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [Oorexx-devel] Removing the table APIs from the API set.
> The exercise of writing test cases for the various APIs was an
> interesting process, as it gave me the opportunity
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 7:40 AM, Rick McGuire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The exercise of writing test cases for the various APIs was an
> interesting process, as it gave me the opportunity to reassess whether
> APIs belonged in the set and also pointed out some holes where
> additional APIs shou
I agree with your analysis. I can not see that I would ever use the table
APIs. Mainly because they do not map to typical C/C++ structure analogs.
Thanks,
W. David Ashley
IBM Systems and Technology Group Lab Services
Open Object Rexx Team
Mobile Phone: 512-289-7506
The exercise of writing test cases for the various APIs was an
interesting process, as it gave me the opportunity to reassess whether
APIs belonged in the set and also pointed out some holes where
additional APIs should be provided.
In the process of doing this, I started to question whether the T
