lclint-interest message 159

From kir@iitb.fhg.de Tue Sep 23 11:07:28 1997
X-Env: (mailgw1.fhg.de) kir@iitb.fhg.de -> lclint-interest@larch.lcs.mit.EDU.VIA-SMTP
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:42:14 +0200
From: Harald Kirsch 
To: lclint-interest@larch.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Re: How to annotate
References: <199709221443.QAA06683@s424.iitb.fhg.de> <9709221936.AA04593@larch.lcs.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.65
In-Reply-To: <9709221936.AA04593@larch.lcs.mit.edu>; from David Evans on Mon, Sep 22, 1997 at 03:36:00PM -0400

On Mon, Sep 22, 1997 at 03:36:00PM -0400, David Evans wrote:
 
> Richard Brooksby's point that the code should be rewritten not annotated
> is a good one.  (Of course, I understand that this is just an example to
> make things as simple as possible.)  In general, I would claim that many
> of the times lclint reports spurious errors because it cannot determine
> that the code is correct are the same types of code that it is hard for
> a human to determine it is correct (and know what that correctness
> depends on so it will break when maintainence changes are made).

I must admit that I was first a bit offended by Richard Brooksby's
remark, but then remembered that I had made similar remarks to collegues
myself in other contexts where I told them to try to believe the
computer. I then reconsidered the code and found that rewriting made it
in fact less complex and, as you say, easier to understand and maintain.

Regards,
	Harald.





-- 
-------------------------------------------------+------------------
Harald Kirsch, kir@iitb.fhg.de, +49 721 6091 369 | Now I rebooted.
FhG/IITB,      Fraunhoferstr.1, 76131 Karlsruhe  |     --- Jerry Pournelle