On 08/02/2014 11:36 PM, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 21:25:40 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 20:27:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Hmmm... code that fails assertions is hardly working. -- Andrei
It is not the code that fails the assertion, it is the asserted
proposition that has not be satisfied by the axioms in the program as
it has been formulated in the context. It does not mean "can not be
satisfied", but "has not been satisfied".
Don't you agree, that a program that throws AssertError in non -release*
build is broken?
...
According to you, what does it mean for a program to be 'broken'?
- Is being 'broken' a binary property or can there be different shades
of 'broken'?
- Is it possible to break 'broken' software more than it was 'broken'
already?
- Is it fine to break 'broken' software in this way?
- Should people be allowed to release 'broken' software? Are they?
- Can 'broken' software be useful?
- Would _you_ use software you know that is 'broken'?
etc. Maybe you find other questions you can answer to exemplify what
'broken' is supposed to mean.
