On 3/14/2013 2:26 PM, bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
I understand this. But my experience in the matter has been that if the tests
cover 100% of the code paths, the incidence of undetected bugs in the code
goes very, very low.
This is not so much true for template-heavy code.
I don't believe that without further evidence.
And 100% code coverage is not enough even for regular code,
I didn't say it was perfect. I said it is very effective, and doesn't leave much
left. I have very positive experience with code I took the time to do coverage
testing on, and so have others.
