Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:26484 comp.software-eng:3008
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: C Community's Cavalier Attitude On Software Reliability
Message-ID: <8212@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 2 Mar 90 19:41:07 GMT
References: <7351@arcturus>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
Lines: 21

From evil@arcturus.UUCP (Wade Guthrie):
> [Unix BUGS comments]
> are honest indications of where problems may exist, and they do so
> in language that can be enjoyed by the person reading the manual.  

   If a currency conversion program is based on the exchange rates
   as of a given date, then this is a continuation of the specification 
   which does not belong in the DEFECTS section.   

   Under no circumstances should a DEFECTS section contain flippant
   comments such as "I tinker a lot, so things break, but then I fix
   them, hooray", "Not bloody likely", or other comments which indicate
   a cavalier attitude toward software reliability.  

   DEFECTS sections exist for the purpose of listing known areas in
   which an implementation does not correspond to the specification,
   along with potential workarounds (if any) and the estimated date
   of repair.  Now compare this with your typical Unix BUGS section.
   

   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu