Hello, Paul. On Monday, January 14, 2008, at 4:03:35 AM, you
wrote:

> Hmm... I'm not sure it takes us forward, but I think of it
> this way. The discovery of a bug adds value because it is a
> discovery. A test that discovers a bug thus adds value.

Very interesting. I'd like to hear from other Lean experts on this
one.

> If I knew that I wouldn't discover a bug by running a test, I
> would be inclined not to run the test. If I knew there were not
> any bugs to discover I would be inclined not to run any tests.

I'm somewhat with you here, certainly. Tests that don't add to our
knowledge are worthless. And yet ... some tests do seem to increase
my certainty that nothing has gone wrong ...

> What I don't know is how I can know there aren't any bugs to
> discover without running the tests. I admit to the possibility of
> having automated transformations that are trusted not to introduce
> bugs, thereby eliminating the need for testing for certain classes
> of bug.

Very interesting. I think we'd all agree pretty well on /certain/
tests being a waste of time. On others we might not.

Found a bug. That's good? :)

Ron Jeffries
www.XProgramming.com
Knowledge must come through action;
you can have no test which is not fanciful, save by trial. -- Sophocles