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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,78a1af350f4cf4b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Keith Thompson Subject: Re: Win2000 has 63,000 'defects' Date: 2000/02/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 586380956 Sender: kst@king.cts.com References: <38A989B7.2D4D6B56@maths.unine.ch> <87k8k69qm9.fsf@deneb.cygnus.argh.org> <2000Feb15.155645.1@eisner> <38A9C619.790950B0@quadruscorp.com> X-Trace: thoth.cts.com 950676259 34433 198.68.168.21 (16 Feb 2000 04:44:19 GMT) Organization: CTS Network Services Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@cts.com Date: 2000-02-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Marin D. Condic" writes: [...] > That's an interesting factoid. I'm wondering what sort of automatic > scanner they might have used? Something like lint? I'd guess if this is > the case that a) there are certainly more errors than would be found by > the scanner and b) the errors that are found are probably over-reported. > (Think of how missing one period in a Cobol program could cascade error > messages from the compiler for days.) The latter is doubtful. Presumably the code being scanned at least compiles; warnings don't typically cascade the way syntax errors do. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> Welcome to the last year of the 20th century.