Re: despair

On Sep 16, 5:06 pm, "David P. Murphy" <dpm_goo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 16, 8:39 am, AEF <spamsink2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Sep 15, 10:47 pm, "David P. Murphy" <dpm_goo...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
followed by the inevitable

%SYSTEM-F-DEVMOUNT, device is already mounted

and immediately thereafter

%BACKUP-F-POSITERR, error positioning $1$MUA400:[000000]DAILY.BCK;
-SYSTEM-F-SERIOUSEXCP, serious exception detected by TMSCP
controller
AHA!!!!! Withholding evidence!!! Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy! And you
complain about the code author!!! ... HAH!

This is like when Tom and Ray on Car Talk are trying to diagnose a
caller's car problems and after struggling for 5 minutes, the caller
finally mentions, "Oh, by the way, the engine check light came on" or
"It only does it when..."

No, it's much more like getting dozens of errors from a compiler
when they're all due to a single missing variable declaration.
They're called "fallout errors", because they don't mean a damn
and disappear once you fix the actual problem upstream . . .
just like the BACKUP fatal messages are completely misleading
and would not have occurred if the command procedure had properly
handled either the failed ALLOCATE or INITIALIZE commands.

In what way do you consider these messages "evidence"? The warning
should have been enough for anyone.

I meant the totality of the error messages as evidence.

I was saying that no one else puts tapes in the machine, probably
things will run more or less okay -- at least not disasterously.

Only LATER do you show that there was an actual resultant problem.

That's all I meant. I mean, my whole point is that context matters.
Are you running a nuclear power plant or playing stupid video games?

When I have some time at work I'll check the sequence of events you
report on my test box.

ok
dpm

AEF

.