On 10/13/05, Dave Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (ref: http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/docs/notes/theory.pod)
>
> >theory Ring{::R} {
> >multi infix:<+> (R, R --> R) {...}
> >multi prefix:<-> (R --> R){...}
> >multi infix:<-> (R $x, R $y --> R) { $x + (-
On 10/13/05, Dave Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I started thinking about the "in general, unverifiable programmatically"
> bit. While obviously true, perhaps we can get closer than just leaving
> them as comments. It should be possible to associate a
> unit-test-generator with the theory, so I
David Storrs wrote:
While I like the idea, I would point out that 1000 tests with randomly
generated data are far less useful than 5 tests chosen to hit boundary
conditions.
I come from a hardware verification background. The trend in this
industry is driven from the fact that the computer
On Oct 13, 2005, at 6:45 PM, Dave Whipp wrote:
I started thinking about the "in general, unverifiable
programmatically" bit. While obviously true, perhaps we can get
closer than just leaving them as comments. It should be possible to
associate a unit-test-generator with the theory, so I ca
