Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
As a technique, paying attention to how broken code changes,
why does it matter that broken code breaks differently? What
does this information tell you that might fix code?
It means there is a known internal dependency on some other part
of the code that is not being
* Michael G Schwern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-18 05:30]:
> Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
>>> As a technique, paying attention to how broken code changes,
>>> why does it matter that broken code breaks differently? What
>>> does this information tell you that might fix code?
>>
>> It means there is
On Saturday 17 May 2008 20:48:24 Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> You’re not following.
>
> 1. There is non-broken code which isn’t being tested directly.
>
> 2. There is a test that ensures its correctness, but only
>indirectly, as part of testing something else.
>
> 3. That something else is cur
* chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-18 07:20]:
> People already have to modify the TODO test to add whatever
> kind of positive assertion you postulate; why is writing a
> separate test a barrier?
Because it’s hidden behind an internal interface that would have
to be exposed? Or any other rea
