In article <5bf24e59-1be0-4d31-9fa7-c03a8bf9b...@y12g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, TheFlyingDutchman <zzbba...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Yes. Nonetheless, the maximum() function does exactly what it is intended > > > to do *with the inputs it receives*. The failure is outside the function; > > > it did the right thing with the data actually passed to it, the problem > > > was a user misunderstanding as to what data were being passed to it. > > > > > So there's a bug -- there's code which does not do what it was intended > > > to do. However, that bug is in the caller, not in the maximum() > > > function. > > > > > This is an important distinction -- it means we can write a function > > > which performs that function reliably. Now we just need to figure out > > > how to call it with valid data... :) > > > > We lost some important context somewhere along the line: > > > > > > > in C I can have a function maximum(int a, int b) that will always > > > > > work. Never blow up, and never give an invalid answer. If someone > > > > > tries to call it incorrectly it is a compile error. > > > > Please take note of the second sentence. > > > > One way or another, this claim is plainly false. The point I was trying > > to make is not so much that the claim is false (someone else was already > > doing that), but that it can be demonstrated to be false without having > > to rely on any run-time input. > > > > The second sentence is not disproved by a cast from one datatype to > another (which changes the value) that happens before maximum() is > called. You can't have it both ways. Either I am calling it incorrectly, in which case I should get a compiler error, or I am calling it correctly, and I should get the right answer. That I got neither does in fact falsify the claim. The only way out of this is to say that maximum(8589934592, 1) returning 1 is in fact "correct", in which case we'll just have to agree to disagree. rg -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
