Re: cdrtools-2.01a22 ready

[Matthias Schniedermeyer <ms@citd.de>]

On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 07:17:16PM +0100, Lourens Veen wrote:
> On Thu 8 January 2004 18:42, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 05:37:33PM +0100, Lourens Veen wrote:
> > > On Thu 8 January 2004 17:07, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 04:24:22PM +0100, Joerg Schilling 
> wrote:
> > > > > It _is_ wrong to assume that a random program compiled for
> > > > > OS revision A will run correctly on OS revision B
> > > >
> > > > Definetly NOT.
> > > >
> > > > e.g. "grep".
> > >
> > > Aaargh!
> > >
> > > Perhaps we should communicate in proposition logic instead af
> > > English? Jörg is right, it is wrong to assume that any random
> > > program compiled for OS revision A will run correctly on OS
> > > revision B. If you disagree, you have to show that every single
> > > possible program _will_ work, not just give one example.
> >
> > If you say it this way, then you even have to say:
> >
> > You can't assume that a random programm compiled for OS Revision
> > A.0.0.0.0.0 will run correctly on OS revision A.0.0.0.0.1
> >
> > They MAY be a subtle bug that prevents the 10thousands program to
> > run correctly.
> 
> Agreed. Ofcourse, if you start assuming that there are bugs, 
> anything might happen and the entire discussion is moot.

Exactly.

I would say:
It is save to assume that a system independend program has a chance of
99% to work in the next Revision.




Bis denn

-- 
Real Programmers consider "what you see is what you get" to be just as 
bad a concept in Text Editors as it is in women. No, the Real Programmer
wants a "you asked for it, you got it" text editor -- complicated, 
cryptic, powerful, unforgiving, dangerous.