On 6/14/05, Peter J. Farrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <FUNNY-RANT> > Me again... However, one "could" argue the MX7 has the bug if you've > unknowingly relied on the bug in MX6.1 or vice-versa. > Poke me with a stick... ;-) > </FUNNY-RANT>
An interesting philosophical debate, yes. If code relies on a "known" bug and is broken by an upgrade (that "fixes" the bug) then it can indeed be argued that the upgrade has a bug because it is not backward compatible. Sometimes the preferred behavior is obvious and the price of fixing "broken" code is worth paying. Sometimes the price of fixing that code is very high. Anecdote: a friend used to work at Microsoft. He told me once how the compiler team fixed a long-standing and well-known bug in the compiler. It broke the next build of Word. The Word team insisted that the bug be "unfixed". The result was a compiler option to enable either the buggy behavior and the fixed behavior to be selected. In other words, the compiler had to have a way to remain "bug-compatible" with the previous release... -- Sean A Corfield -- http://corfield.org/ Team Fusebox -- http://fusebox.org/ Got Gmail? -- I have 50, yes 50, invites to give away! "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). CFCDev is supported by New Atlanta, makers of BlueDragon http://www.newatlanta.com/products/bluedragon/index.cfm An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
