On 7/28/09, leon zadorin <leonleo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How you choose to represent the behavior's definition is irrelevant
> (code or words, on paper or on screen).
>
> I am, at this stage of conversation (if one can call it such), noting
> the difference (in my opinion) between implementation and definition
> -- and whilst there are cases when code represents both of such
> concepts in one place; there are other places when there simply *must*
> be multiple implementations (i.e. a source code of a given
> app/library) of a given behavior/interface (standard) so that
> different processes/boxes/entities/etc can inter-operate with each
> other.
>
> For instance: "Hello, how are you?" whether being written by me or by
> you, on screen or on paper is still better than "AOAURRAOREAr naoe
> as10 ao" ... right?
I was, originally, a little hesitant of adding this extra note but
after some thought I might as well mention it... as it may provide
more clarity on the issue of this implementation vs definition
diversion from original question. This is only to show that, in fact,
I think we are saying common things, just in different terms.
I look at the actual ('raw') source code.
I then observe/derive a resulting behavior that such code would produce.
But I then also may want to optimize/improve the code (i.e. change it
with purposes of making the application perform better, faster, etc.)
-- but the question is: "by changing the code, some (insignificant)
aspects of the resulting behavior may change as well -- so which parts
of the resulting behavior are relied-upon/are-expected by other
applications and which fall in the 'irrelevant/insignificant or,
indeed, undefined' category"? One would need to know the boundaries of
code re-factoring when improving the *implementation* whilst still
retaining the interoperability-enabling interface/contract,
expected/*defined* behavior.
Whether such expectations (behavior definitions) are sometimes written
'inline' in the source code or in some standard publication is not the
main point really.
That's all I am saying. Feel free to ignore or make "blah blah blah" noises :-)
So now we can, perhaps, get back (if at all) to the man pages and what
they are implying wrt original question.
Leon.
