On 29/04/2018 14:14, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> 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.
>

... which is where I came in, being denied access to implemented classes.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05