On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 02:45:12AM +0900, Mauricio Fern?ndez wrote:
> > > the object represents /dev/null and you cannot read back what you 
> > > wrote previously? 
> > If the method needs to read back, you've just caught a bug; if it does
> > not need to read back, you're running the wrong test.
> > 
> > > It is hard to specify the right minimal semantic requirements...
> > 
> > Anything in particular makes you think so?
> 
> I only needed about .1s to find the /dev/null example. 

Now if only it showed something...

> There must be
> tons of them. If you completely specify the semantics of something, it
> is too constrained, for somebody could find another use for it you
> didn't think of.

Then don't specify it completely.

> > > IMHO it is a good idea if some provision is made for "non-standard"
> > > behaving objects. 
> > 
> > I wasn't suggesting standard tests -- that would be equivalent to
> > going back to type names; I was suggesting ad-hoc tests made up
> > according to the needs of the method.
> 
> We'd need a summary of "best current practice" for this kind of tests so
> you don't make too many assumptions. 

We'd need a summary of "best current practice" for lots of things we
do daily. :-)

Massimiliano