From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a24:5495:: with SMTP id
 t143-v6mr9381309ita.34.1540135208345;
        Sun, 21 Oct 2018 08:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:24e8:: with SMTP id z95mr768474ota.1.1540135208176;
 Sun, 21 Oct 2018 08:20:08 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!usenet-its.stanford.edu!usenet.stanford.edu!z5-v6no310279ite.0!news-out.google.com!l70-v6ni413itb.0!nntp.google.com!x98-v6no310591ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 08:20:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <pqap5k$t6a$1@dont-email.me>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=2003:c7:83d2:56e0:7063:76d3:9fcf:41dd;
 posting-account=rmHyLAoAAADSQmMWJF0a_815Fdd96RDf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2003:c7:83d2:56e0:7063:76d3:9fcf:41dd
References: <7fcdcc97-67e4-473b-abc4-cd0ecd4501ad@googlegroups.com>
 <pq2gge$a3s$1@dont-email.me>
 <8f6c0bfa-f7ed-4bee-a766-c786269f13a1@googlegroups.com>
 <pq55ad$l96$1@dont-email.me>
 <eec140a3-cab7-43d2-a6a1-dc7ebce86a5b@googlegroups.com>
 <pqafta$utu$1@dont-email.me>
 <80e23f09-06ac-4112-9b7f-e765266a952d@googlegroups.com>
 <pqap5k$t6a$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <401524c8-ca2e-4192-b451-96abfc98a066@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Is the Documentation In a spec File Usually Enough For You ?
From: AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>
Injection-Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 15:20:08 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:54682
Date: 2018-10-21T08:20:07-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Am Donnerstag, 18. Oktober 2018 22:07:18 UTC+2 schrieb Jeffrey R. Carter:
> On 10/18/18 7:54 PM, AdaMagica wrote:
> > 
> > If you do not say that your code produces a good password, how can the user know he will get a good password? He must trust JC because he possibly knows him personally or because he uses other well defined and well written sw from him.
> > 
> > But I claim: In SW, there must be no such trust. JC may just have been being lazy in this case.
> 
> Right. So if I claim the function returns a good password, you won't trust me 
> and won't accept my claim until you've tested it. So there's no point in my 
> making such a claim.

So if you used a library written by me, would you take it as is without ever caring whether is does what I claimed that it does? How imprudent!