Date:         Mon, 19 Aug 1996 12:03:57 -0400
Reply-To:     TIM.LATENDRESS@LATENT62.CUSTOMS.SPRINT.COM
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
From:         Tim Latendress <TIM.LATENDRESS@LATENT62.CUSTOMS.SPRINT.COM>
Subject:      Re: SAS Program of the Month Club (finis, please)

OK, I just can't give this up even if Phil has (which makes the whole
thing moot anyway).  So many noted authorities have written in defense
of the idea that it becomes obvious that we shouldn't continue to
question the utility of it. Many postings have added nothing but a
"Yeah, what he said" to the discussion.  And, for some strange reason,
several people tried to add value but decided to skirt the question of
Rule #5. Instead, they centered their discussion around the indisputable
significance of Phil Mason's contributions, which wasn't the issue at
all. How these people could interpret a discussion about Rule #5 as an
indictment of Phil is beyond me.  But I guess that's why reading
comprehension tests were developed.
 
Fortunately, some have actually responded to the question of the value
of Rule #5. Chris Strickland suggests that we need to see beyond the
rules, that they were only there for those developers who wanted them.
If you didn't want Rule #5 to apply to your program(s) then you would
say "Rules? I don't need no stinkin' rules." and the code would be
tested and moved to the F.C.S..  In reality, his suggestion is an
important change to Phil's original idea for the program sharing group
and would make most of the programs available to all of us.  And that's
what this discussion was supposed to be all about.  Thanks Chris.
 
 
Tim Latendress
latendress@latent62.customs.sprint.com