From: A E Lawrence Newsgroups: comp.editors,comp.sys.transputer Subject: Re: Folding editors Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1998 22:11:24 +0000 Organization: Not much Message-Id: <36573A8C.D2D4DEAA@oucs.ox.ac.uk> References: <36374B57.168B9492@pact.srf.ac.uk> <71aj0c$oc$1@fangorn.moria.de> <6r1znq7264.fsf@belhaven.spider.com> <3639BEFD.2CC25E3C@esgem.com> <6r4ssm59ay.fsf@belhaven.spider.com> <6rhfwi4ee6.fsf@belhaven.spider.com> <363EEB84.5CAD538B@roke.co.uk> <6rvhkw20nk.fsf@belhaven.spider.com> <364CBB49.ABE8624B@oucs.ox.ac.uk> <6r90hb7vgg.fsf@belhaven.spider.com> <365737AE.63727C06@oucs.ox.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Xref: ukc comp.editors:32332 comp.sys.transputer:8937 A E Lawrence wrote: > > Iain A F Fleming wrote: [..] > > > > Ridiculously high complexity metrics, non-ameanble to full coverage testing, > > hindering of compiler optimistion. > > > > > The folding may well make this comprehensible, efficient, and provably > > > correct. > > > > In the presnece of "loops within loops within conditionals"? Unlikely. > > Of course, I wasn't advocating such a style: I did say disciplined! And > the compiler technology may well impose other constraints when > performance is crucial: of course. > > Perhaps when formal proof and refinment techniques are more mature, we > won't need any "testing"? Of software. Hardware is physics: a different > matter :-) Oops! Pardon me. Wrong sort of "testing". Too many hours at a keyboard:-( Please interpret that last comment out of context. :-) -- Dr A E Lawrence (from home)