Mark Wieder wrote:
Garrett-
Saturday, April 8, 2006, 1:23:55 PM, you wrote:
The thing is, that is not a bug. The programmer did not make any error
in his code at all. The code works as it was intended.
That's just silly. How do *you* know what was intended? The entire
requirements for this app seem to be defined in a three word comment
[snip]
And how do you know? You make assumptions and then layout a plot that
in itself is not even related to the code before you, making it more
complicated than what it really is, just so you can find a way to back
up your stance. But the fact is, there was nothing there to back up
your stance. The intent of the code is far too obvious for you or
anyone else here to say any different. You can try to deter the
attention to the obvious, but that's just not going to cut it.
The point was that the program is bug free. And it is. I can
understand though that this does not really represent a real world
application where there is far more code and more chances of bug getting
into the scheme of things, but the fact still remains, the code that was
provided is bug free, no if, and, or but about it.
You're just upset because your belief that bug free is impossible was
shown to be wrong.
-Garrett
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
