Re: Is the Documentation In a spec File Usually Enough For You ?

[AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>]

Am Dienstag, 16. Oktober 2018 18:57:51 UTC+2 schrieb Jeffrey R. Carter:
> On 10/16/18 11:57 AM, AdaMagica wrote:
> > 
> > OK. In function Password_Generation.Generate, what are Domain and Master for?
> > What does Hash_Symbol do?
> 
> Good points. This was extracted from a more monolithic, earlier version of 
> Password_Gen, where perhaps these concepts were better explained, and I didn't 
> think to clarify them when I pulled them out. I'll try to explain these better.

Yes. Even inner specs that are not visible for the user must follow these rules that everything visible in the spec is exactly described. Then nothing bad happens when an internal package is extracted.

> > What does "correctness of the implementation" mean for this package?
> 
> That the function returns the same password for the same inputs, and the 
> passwords have all the desirable features for generated passwords:  they appear 
> random, contain characters from all the major food groups, and give away nothing 
> about the master password.

This is what I mean. There is no requirement defined for this operation. So how can I as a user know what I get? So you have to put this in the spec as a description. Then a user can make test to check whether the claims are true.

Christoph