On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Christian Ridderström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | duh... unless we suddenly entered a world without software bugs, how can
> | you say that the code defines the intended behaviour?
> | ^^^^^^^^
>
> How can you _ever_ say that? Can a single name tell? or do we need a
> small essay and examples on behaviour to tell?
Wow... this was a while back... Are you going through old mail?
I think my question is rethorical/ironical ("duh..." indicates this ;-)
Anway, since I'm unclear on what you mean... (or I meant), I went back
and read my first post in this thread:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.editors.lyx.devel/32459
Here's a snippet about enumerated LFUN labels v.s. command strings:
... looking at the enum names and the strings for the user
commands I get confused. Which one is supposed to "define"(*) the
intended behaviour of the LFUN?
where the "define"(*) refers to the following footnote:
(*) I mean "define" in the sense that I think the name, either of
the enum, or of the command string should be clearly connected to
the intended action of the LFUN.
So... what I originally meant by "define" does not require an essay... and
I was probably thinking of documenting the list of LFUNs or something...
Mabye "specifies" is the word I should have used, i.e. something that
specifies how the lfun ought to behave.
Going back to your question of "_ever_ say that" - in a real world you
can't of course. With "without software bugs" I meant in a perfect
world, with a perfect implementation and no bugs.... then - maybe - the
code could define intended behaviour ;-)
Note: We could always do a change of opinion and simply say that the
indented behaviour is what the code does, i.e.
"That's not a bug, it's a feature!" ;-)
Ok... I'm completely rambling now so I'd better stop.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everybody...
(I just realized it's Friday...)
/Christian
--
Christian Ridderström http://www.md.kth.se/~chr
