# from Andy Lester
# on Thursday 22 January 2009 11:35:
>> Perhaps I'm being unclear. I do not find either 'no_plan' or 'plan'
>> to be useful in their current state.
>
>Yes, but many others do.
Well, are we just accepting limitations and refusing to dream?
<ewilhelm> the computer must use a $number. does the *human* actually
want to use a $number?
<Theory> This human does.
<soh> i do. i always want to know if more tests than i expect are
running
<Theory> Because the computer can get it wrong.
<ewilhelm> no, the computer doesn't get things wrong
<Theory> It does because of loops. ...
<ewilhelm> ok, so everybody who likes to manually set a static number
just doesn't *trust* the computer?
<Theory> Correct.
If we were to pretend that tests could be declared in such a way that a
plan could be derived from static analysis and perhaps a bit of startup
computation, would there be any reason to do otherwise?
If the answer is yes, please explain how the reason does not cite a
limitation of the implementation.
Thanks,
Eric
--
The only thing that could save UNIX at this late date would be a new $30
shareware version that runs on an unexpanded Commodore 64.
--Don Lancaster (1991)
---------------------------------------------------
http://scratchcomputing.com
---------------------------------------------------
