From: Richard MacDonald <rmacdonald@...>
Date: 2001-12-21T01:10:10+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:29136] Re: John Roth dolt (  Re: A challenge to proponents of Unit Testing. )

"Vladimir" <truediogen@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:4837660.0112200217.2211c141@posting.google.com...
> Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@REMOVEacm.org> wrote in message
news:<99930536532CE726.7EDA0292730FE38B.4D2F742E02C9E2A3@lp.airnews.net>...
> > On Wed, 19 Dec 2001 14:29:18 -0800, "John Roth"
> > <johnroth@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> > It'd be a good target. I would be afraid that in languages like Java
> > where you have a lot of required exception handling, it would be
> > difficult to get coverage in certain areas. I could be wrong, though.
>
> If it can be achieved it should be tested.
> If it can't be achieved it should be deleted [from code, library,
> package or something else].
>
In his previous post, Ron was referring to required workarounds (caused by
the
strong typing of exceptions in this case) that *have* to
be inserted to satisfy the compiler but also "can't be achieved".