Paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Fair enough. My main issue was against the notion that random testing > > is the only thing necessary. > > Sorry Paul if I may have given that impression, its just that when you > bring in random testing to a design that until then had only directed > tests you can see the bug rate jump up!
Sure, I agree with that as well, what I should have said was I have an issue with the notion that testing (of any sort) is all that is needed to reach high assurance. Directed and random tests BOTH failed to catch the FDIV bug. You need methods that demonstrate the absence of defects, not just fail to demonstrate their presence. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
