Ahem A Rivet's Shot  writes:
> druck  wrote:
>> On 29/04/2018 11:01, Gareth's Downstairs Computer wrote:
>>> On 29/04/2018 10:14, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018 19:43:36 +0100
>>>> Gareth's Downstairs Computer
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For example, I was contracted to work on the development
>>>>> of a CANBus steering mechanism which used one of the
>>>>> object repository. When I wished to check the efficacy
>>>>> of my proposed changes by drilling down to everything
>>>>> that would be affected by the change, I was refused access
>>>>> to the source of the already implemented classes.
>>>>
>>>> Makes sense, code should be built to the spec of the underlying
>>>> libraries and not to the implementation. If behaviour outside the
>>>> spec matters it needs to be bought into the spec, and preferably
>>>> tested for.
>>>
>>> It is lack of knowledge of the implementation that hides bugs.
>
> One way to create subtle and nasty bugs is to write code that depends
> on the implementation rather than the spec.

It happens anyway, even when programmers don’t look at the
implementation.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05