> We all know that code we write > is > always perfect, and never needs updating.
Actually, with some of my commercial applications that is more true than not, but still not true in absolute terms. I credit your (Ed's) assistance and guidance back in early 2001 for that, as your recommendations were spot on, and I even dared to listen to you and implement the changes suggested. There have been some enhancements and bug fixes, but mostly in the first 3 years of life for the apps. After that it has just been running and running and running and running... I wonder what Windows 7 has in store for me with the apps... Gil > -----Original Message----- > From: profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com [mailto:profoxtech- > boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Ed Leafe > Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 2:33 PM > To: profoxt...@leafe.com > Subject: Re: Is it possible to prove "functional equivalence" > > On Jul 22, 2009, at 11:59 AM, Stephen Russell wrote: > > > If your code has tests associated with it and in the build they fail, > > your code is EXCLUDED in the build. > > > There are two incorrect assumptions that too many people make: > > - if the tests pass, the code must be correct > - if the tests fail, the code must not be correct > > Neither of these are always true. > > Tests are nothing more than code. We all know that code we write > is > always perfect, and never needs updating. > > ;-) > > > -- Ed Leafe > > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/045b01ca0afb$81181a70$83484f...@rr.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
