> -----Original Message----- > From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of > Mark Roberts > Sent: 22 January 2012 13:41 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: More: PESO 2012 - 006 (008, 009) - GDG > > knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote: > > >Perhaps this is the exception that proves the rule (that's actually > one of the most stupid sayings ever) but yours works. > > Actually it's not a stupid expression, just a misunderstood one (and > you, Frank, with your legal background, ought to know about it). It's > a legal maxim that dates back to Rome - the famed orator Cicero is the > first know reference. > > Basically, it means that the act of specifying an exception to a rule > proves that such a rule exists even if said rule isn't explicitly > stated. Here's a concrete example: In many states in the U.S. traffic > law allows you to make a right turn at a red light (after coming to a > stop). But not all states permit this, so the issue when traveling > across country is determining whether the state you're in allows it. > The presence of a sign that says "No right turn on red" is what you > look for. The exception (the sign that says "No right turn on red") > proves the rule (that in general you *can* turn right on red). > > This is from a Dictionary of Foreign Words and Phrases in Current > English, by Alan Bliss (ISBN 9780415059053) > > via Cecil Adams and the Straight Dope: > "Cicero was defending one Bilbo. (No relation to Frodo.) Bilbo was a > non-Roman who was accused of having been illegally granted Roman > citizenship. The prosecutor argued that treaties with some non-Roman > peoples explicitly prohibited them from becoming Roman citizens. The > treaty with Bilbo's homeboys had no such clause, but the prosecutor > suggested one should be inferred. > > Nonsense, said Cicero. "Quod si exceptio facit ne liceat, ubi non sit > exceptum ..." Oops, I keep forgetting how rusty folks are on > subjunctives. Cicero said, if you prohibit something in certain cases, > you imply that the rest of the time it's permitted. To put it another > way, the explicit statement of an exception proves that a rule to the > contrary prevails otherwise. " >
that's not the way I understand it, although I can understand your reasoning). My interpretation (given to me, coincidentally, by my pedantic Latin teacher, who was well versed in Cicero) is that in order to test (prove) a rule, you must use exceptions - in other words, exceptions test rules. If the rule says "You can't come into this nightclub wearing trainers" - that is, you can wear anyone footwear *except* trainers - and everybody who tries to get in is wearing glass court shoes, you haven't tested the rule. Trainers are the exception, so to test (prove) the rule someone has to try to get in wearing them. This principle works as well in software testing as it does in nocturnal doormanship. B -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
