From: Keith Ray <k1e2i3t4h5r6a7y@1m2a3c4.5c6o7m>
Date: 2001-12-11T11:22:28+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:28164] Re: John Roth dolt (  Re: A challenge to proponents of Unit Testing. )

In article <ded6b237.0112100935.57024f11@posting.google.com>,
 rbinder@rbsc.com (Bob Binder) wrote:

> BTW, the apparent meaning of "adequate testing" in this thread is not
> consistent with definition used in the testing community for over 15
> years: adequate testing must *at least* achieve statement coverage.
> There are many other possible definitions of "adequate testing", but
> if your tests don't at least reach all the code in the IUT, you can't
> claim to be doing adequate testing. Although any definition of
> "adequate testing" which attempts a more stringent criteria can be
> falsified, many unambiguous non-subjective criteria for adequacy have
> been useful in practice, but they don't include "I say so".

Didn't the tests in the examples by Kent and Uncle Bob have 100% 
statement coverage, so by your definition, they are "adequate"?