At 17:32 2009-07-21, Ted Roche <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:00 PM, Paul Newton<[email protected]> wrote:
> > Thanks Paul
> >
> > It was more of "theoretical" question than a practical one but yes
> > obviously writing a unit test suite/harness would be the way to go in
> > practical circumstances ...
I am trying to put together a simple test suite for the app
that I maintain. My boss does not really see the need for it, and he
is the one who has to establish the standard. I think, I hope that
he is going to do it, to humour me if nothing else.
>And even then, while the functions might be equivalent in producing
>matching outputs from input, there could be other side effects that
>mean they're not truly equivalent.
>
>For example, one might leave a SET setting in a different condition
>than it was before the function was called, or a different work area
>selected, or the record pointer at a different place.
Or there could be a bug in the underlying language's
implementation so that programs supposedly equivalent end up not being so.
And to complicate it, those different SET settings, in some
cases, would not make any difference.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
