"Ron Jeffries" <ronjeffries / REMOVEacm.org> wrote in message
news:99930536532CE726.7EDA0292730FE38B.4D2F742E02C9E2A3 / lp.airnews.net..
..
> 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.

I don't know Java, although it's next on my list of languages to
learn. If the language makes you write code that, even in principle,
cannot be executed, then it has a major problem.

A more significant problem is the lack of a coverage analyzer
for a language that can be automated for a pass/fail result.

John Roth
>
> Ronald E Jeffries
> http://www.XProgramming.com
> http://www.objectmentor.com