Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.musoftware.de!wum.musoftware.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: blmblm@myrealbox.com <blmblm.myrealbox@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: callback function
Date: 26 Oct 2012 12:48:37 GMT
Organization: None
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <aevf55FaofhU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <k5n77p$e5v$1@speranza.aioe.org> <k5pv1a$t1v$1@speranza.aioe.org> <aesgvlFk659U1@mid.individual.net> <HtidnZHdJcz28RTNnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@bestweb.net>
X-Trace: individual.net E4U3AptfMKg+8IWMoMYXCw/3Xb/y/tbrcw3SqmY2x246zYBmu/YRTBWoRhKmb7t5jg
X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tR8LwvUivry8ikSfwKKQAcUdtDI=
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001)
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:27719

In article <HtidnZHdJcz28RTNnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@bestweb.net>,
Kenneth Brody  <kenbrody@spamcop.net> wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 6:01 AM, blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote:
> [...]
> > Aside, not just to you:  I'm always amused by claims that code "works
> > perfectly".  "Works for all the tests I tried", okay, but -- oh well,
> > I suppose I'm just a pessimist?  It does seem like only relatively
> > inexperienced programmers make such claims.
> 
> Well, I have no problem believing the "works for all tests I tried" claims. 

Except the beginners don't seem to say it that way, do they?  they say 
something works "perfectly" or "flawlessly".  Cynic that I am, I'm
inclined to agree with your comment:

>   I just don't believe that their test suite was very extensive.
>
> "No, I never tried entering 'antidisestablishmentarianism'.  Why do you ask?"
> 
> "No, I never tried entering 12345678901234567890.  Why do you ask?"
> 
> "No, I never tried passing a negative number.  Why do you ask?"
> 

Indeed.

-- 
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer:  I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.