bugs

[Garrett Hylltun]

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