In article <ded6b237.0112100935.57024f11 / posting.google.com>,
 rbinder / rbsc.com (Bob Binder) wrote:

> BTW, the apparent meaning of "adequate testing" in this thread is not
> consistent with definition used in the testing community for over 15
> years: adequate testing must *at least* achieve statement coverage.
> There are many other possible definitions of "adequate testing", but
> if your tests don't at least reach all the code in the IUT, you can't
> claim to be doing adequate testing. Although any definition of
> "adequate testing" which attempts a more stringent criteria can be
> falsified, many unambiguous non-subjective criteria for adequacy have
> been useful in practice, but they don't include "I say so".

Didn't the tests in the examples by Kent and Uncle Bob have 100% 
statement coverage, so by your definition, they are "adequate"?