On 8/22/07, Sean Corfield wrote: > > On 8/21/07, Dinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That wikipedia ROCKS! > > Don't believe everything you read on wikipedia - it's descriptions of > some design patterns are pitiful, for example.
Fo sho- Did you see the page on Dada "Art"? ;-) Do you ever edit those patterns entries? > Seems like the most plausible way to get that kind of > > "coverage" is through Test Driven Design > > The point of code coverage is *measurability*. By definition, you get > better coverage by having better tests but that's irrelevant to the > process of figuring out the *amount* of coverage. I could see how one could say "I tested for X" but it's the "out of X" bit that seems like it could go on for ever. Thus, the percentage bit- how do you know how much you've done if you don't really know how much you have to do? "I've tested for X" is honest. Some of the coverage tests are easy, others, don't look so easy.. I get the idea, and it's fine, I just like how it's sorta impossible. Not like impossible-impossible- we did send peeps 2 da moon! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Get involved in the latest ColdFusion discussions, product development sharing, and articles on the Adobe Labs wiki. http://labs/adobe.com/wiki/index.php/ColdFusion_8 Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:286799 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
