"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
news:1j8hpasemtm7n$.1l1wrnukz7ewf$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Mon, 29 May 2006 17:08:27 +0200, Jan Vorbr�ggen wrote:
>
> >>>In the case of Ariane 501, the correct approach
> >>>IMO would have been to have a test mode (with detection) and a flight mode,
> >>>which turns on the "let's hope and pray" handling of errors and is reserved
> >>>for use only on actual launches.
> >> I don't think so. The problem (bug) wasn't in an inappropriate handling of
> >> an error. It was a false positive in error detection. Handling was correct,
> >> detection was wrong.
> >
> > If any error had been forseen, I might agree. But the problem lay in
handling
> > the unforseen error: that handling, in itself, led to failure. The approach
> > taken just wasn't tolerant of errors in the programming.
>
> Ah, but an unforeseen error is a bug. One cannot be bug-tolerant, it is
> self-contradictory, after all.

A program can be bug-tolerant.
Standard error-handling techniques dan del with them.
Such programs containing error handling are called fail-safe programs.