In
<CAE1XxDF7qr2ek3mdCFRsgdqUjpReOCmCs5qqfckwMY7sh=t...@mail.gmail.com>,
on 01/12/2014
at 05:11 PM, John Gilmore <[email protected]> said:
>If I argued that the comments prefixed to a routine described its
>putative algorithm correctly and that the routine itself could thus
>contain no error, Shmuel would still hopefully be quick to point out
>the inadequacy of my argument; but here he is guilty of the same sort
>of cocksure silliness.
Nonsense; you are conflating a formal specification with a body of
code purporting to impliment that specification. If your real
complaint is that there is code in the wild that does not correctly
impliment the specifications, then be honest enough to say so instead
of playing word games.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
