On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 14:29:18 -0800, "John Roth"
<johnroth / ameritech.net> wrote:

>If you feel it's important, (and I certainly do) coverage analyzers can
>be added to the XP procedures quite simply, as long as they are
>fast and automated. If I was going to add one, I'd probably make
>100% coverage a criterion for code checkin, just like the 100%  unit
>tests successful criterion.

It'd be a good target. I would be afraid that in languages like Java
where you have a lot of required exception handling, it would be
difficult to get coverage in certain areas. I could be wrong, though.

Ronald E Jeffries
http://www.XProgramming.com
http://www.objectmentor.com