Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 18:30:30 -0500
Date: Sun, 20 May 2012 16:30:27 -0700
From: Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.2; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.comp.lang.borland-delphi,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Oracle/Google demonstrate human beings cannot write 10 lines of code without making a mistake ;)
References: <b3f1b$4fb4f87c$5419acc3$14079@cache60.multikabel.net> <44ccr7tidpk4jta4lhg7m954vdr7abvnte@4ax.com> <1k2dr7527p5reqegfr8oln65q55bmvo4ar@4ax.com> <67485$4fb7edfe$5419acc3$16334@cache70.multikabel.net> <4fb9714c$0$293$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
In-Reply-To: <4fb9714c$0$293$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <SI6dnZCFWN4L4yTSnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@earthlink.com>
Lines: 23
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.230.202.8
X-Trace: sv3-IIO2Wpn/DXNnX/2qNxYZpzA2HYN8w4JlACqLFX7sXfnj0jNbZY2Zg5XniUPjKyb5XvHKiasf6b9uTog!zYbgCtI+6hGmOb0lqb3Khj0alVPwqlVFTxmf4ehMzDqh3WLSNfOgY2S4GE2ItAgaXP5sMCDuoKu5!z3VYK7bDjmT7yR7cox6Ps1h549uBCdat2DOwNd41iDYD
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2377
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:21099 comp.lang.java.programmer:14694

On 5/20/2012 3:33 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
> On 5/19/2012 3:01 PM, Skybuck Flying wrote:
>> However in this case, assuming it was a mistake, both programmers would
>> have made the same mistake in exactly the same code, at exactly the same
>> position.
>>
>> Now that's a bit unlikely isn't it ?! ;)
>>
>> Mistakes with > or >= are usually random, and not at a fixed position.
>
> But given that the code was correct, then your argumentation is
> completely flawed.

Moreover, the choice of a semi-open range was forced by the
long-established public interfaces.

The rangeCheck method looks like a case of taking a block of code that
would be very frequently repeated in a class and making it into a
private method. Doing it in such a way that every caller had to put "-1"
on one of the arguments would be very strange, and create an unnecessary
risk of mistakes.

Patricia