Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!exodus-bb!khb From: khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM (Keith Bierman fpgroup) Newsgroups: comp.software-eng Subject: Re: Software Quality Message-ID: Date: 22 Mar 91 18:47:44 GMT References: <1991Mar20.043236.1236@ox.com> <10412@orca.wv.tek.com> Sender: news@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM Distribution: comp.software-eng Organization: Sun MegaSystems Lines: 18 In-reply-to: dougs@baldwin.WV.TEK.COM's message of 22 Mar 91 16:16:27 GMT In article <10412@orca.wv.tek.com> dougs@baldwin.WV.TEK.COM (Doug Schwartz;685-2700;61-252;Baldwin) writes: any of the previous (or all combined). What about defects by omission? How do we rate them? e.g. if you don't test for divide-by-zero, is this a defect? Testing for divide by zero was rendered obsolete by IEEE 754. +-Inf and NaN are perfectly valid states. What your program should do with them varies upon application domain. But testing for zero before the divide isn't necessary (nor, in fact, desireable). -- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Keith H. Bierman kbierman@Eng.Sun.COM | khb@chiba.Eng.Sun.COM SMI 2550 Garcia 12-33 | (415 336 2648) Mountain View, CA 94043