"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