Re^13: regexp class (no bugs)

in reply to Re^12: regexp class (no bugs)
in thread re: regexp class

Please read the thread again. And remember who it was who brought up the logical extreme of having no code at all.

I just did read it again. And here's how the subject came up. I said:"You missed the ultimate silly extreme.".

That was sarcasm, that if you are going to go to silly extremes, you could have gone further.

A photo editor that doesn't do anything ...

No code isn't a photo editor. It isn't anything. As I already said, it isn't an "it" at all. There is no spec. No missing features. And no bugs.

To bring this back to the subject, golfed code is a "silly extremes" argument to the preposition that less code means less bugs.

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Comment on Re^13: regexp class (no bugs)
Re^14: regexp class (no bugs) by JavaFan (Canon) on Sep 04, 2011 at 08:39 UTC
if you are going to go to silly extremes, you could have gone further. No, you could not go further. Golfed code in no way implies reducing functionality. It should still do the same as the original code. It should still pass the test suite. That's obviously not true when you reduce your program to no code at all.	[reply]
Re^15: regexp class (no bugs) by BrowserUk (Pope) on Sep 04, 2011 at 09:27 UTC
No, you could not go further. Like I said: sarcasm. But at least we agree that using golfed code as a counter argument to the axiom: "that less code means less bugs", is a silly extreme. Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply]
Re^16: regexp class (no bugs) by JavaFan (Canon) on Sep 04, 2011 at 09:34 UTC
You're spending an awful lot of time defending your position before declaring it sarcasm. And I'm not agreeing with you on anything here.	[reply]
Re^17: regexp class (no bugs) by BrowserUk (Pope) on Sep 04, 2011 at 09:38 UTC
Re^18: regexp class (no bugs) by JavaFan (Canon) on Sep 04, 2011 at 10:30 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here
Re^15: regexp class (no bugs) by Logicus on Sep 14, 2011 at 23:52 UTC
...No, you could not go further... How about code that hasn't been written yet? Does that have any bugs in it?	[reply]
Re^16: regexp class (no bugs) by JavaFan (Canon) on Sep 15, 2011 at 09:28 UTC
If your car doesn't have an engine, does it have problems running?	[reply]
Re^17: regexp class (no bugs) by BrowserUk (Pope) on Sep 15, 2011 at 09:45 UTC
Re^18: regexp class (no bugs) by Logicus on Sep 18, 2011 at 22:27 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here


Clear questions and runnable code get the best and fastest answer
	PerlMonks

Re^13: regexp class (no bugs)

The best material for plates (tableware) is: