Re: [boost] Formal Review of IO and Toolbox extensions toBoost.GIL starts TOMORROW

Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review of IO and Toolbox extensions toBoost.GIL starts TOMORROW
From: Domagoj Saric (dsaritz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-12-11 06:34:51

"Phil Endecott" <spam_from_boost_dev_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:1291925453226_at_dmwebmail.dmwebmail.chezphil.org...
> Christian Henning wrote:
>> This would assume that both png reader and writer have some bugs in
>> common.
>
> No it doesn't.  Imagine a bug in the reader that caused the data to be all 
> 0.

To follow Lubomir in giving Christian more support, the 'clear-cut' "no it 
doesn't" seems (even to me :) a bit too harsh as Christian did admit that 
the test is not perfect and, statistically speaking (as he spoke of 'good 
indication'), he was not so far from truth (i.e. what is the probability of 
the reader reading all zeros and what of the reader and writer having a 
common bug...)...

Knowing how much time I spent on io2 without writing a single test I can 
only imagine the time spent by Christian on writing all the other extensions 
and the tests for them. As it is becoming more and more apparent that even 
the amount of tests Christian did write is not enough to cover all the use 
cases that keep coming up I must again say that the most effective solution, 
at least when tests are concerned, would be for the reviewers to also join 
in constructively for example by writing (pseudo-code) tests that exercise 
their use cases...

-- 
"What Huxley teaches is that in the age of advanced technology, spiritual
devastation is more likely to come from an enemy with a smiling face than
from one whose countenance exudes suspicion and hate."
Neil Postman