In a msg of <05 Nov 92>, Per Goetterup writes to All:
-> I can't help commenting on this. First of all there's several
-> reasons why a TPU2PAS program would be extremely usefull without
-> being a nuissance, the major one being BUGS. A lot of
-> TPU-libraries availiable has serious bugs, which (faithful to a
-> well- known law) when fixed, generate even more new bugs. I've
-> encountered several cases where one of my programs ends up
-> worthless because of a bug in a foreign library, which I most
-> likely would be able to fix in no time. Today I've written all my
-> libraries myself - just to avoid ending up dead for the above
-> reason.
Well, I must disagree. .TPU's only have bugs in them as a result of the .PAS file therefore having the source isn't going to eliminate the problem without the user modifying the code. By providing the software as a .TPU, modification is EXACTLY what the author wishes to avoid!
-> Second, it's not the programmer of the TPU2PAS program that
-> responsible for what might be done (if he/she includes the
-> standard disclaimers) but the person who uses it to disassemble
True, but then again, the author obviosly doesn't want the program dissasembled if it's supplied in .TPU - going back to the gun story, this is like selling a gun to someone without a license!
-> Third (and last) I thoroughly dislike persons who's unwilling to
-> share nifty parts of source code when requested. This ego-mania
-> will be virtually eliminated with a TPU2PAS program around.
Most people are more than willing to share the theory and sometimes even the source to certain parts of the programs if asked for it. I don't think that the above is anything near to a serious problem; besides, if one person won't tell you how, there's always someone else that can help you.
-> I might just start writing a TPU2PAS program...
Then Borland is more than likely to change the format
