in reply to Re^3: regexp class
in thread re: regexp class

You missed the ultimate silly extreme. No code means no bugs. Try and disprove that
That's trivial to disprove. Most code is intended to do something. If it doesn't do what is intended to be done, it isn't correct. No code means nothing is done.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: regexp class
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Sep 03, 2011 at 08:08 UTC
    trivial to disprove.... If it doesn't do ...

    Sorry, but your disproof has bugs.

    What "it". If there is no code, there is no "it".

    The absence of functionality is not a bug. In many cases, it is the most pragmatic, correct solution.

    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.
Re^5: regexp class
by ww (Archbishop) on Sep 03, 2011 at 09:41 UTC

    Please show me the bugs in my code above.

      If your code crashed in a forest and no one was around to hear it, would it make a sound?
        maybe a croak...
      Without some sort of specification what code needs to do, it's never possible to point out bugs. Some me your specification, and I'll show you the bugs (unless the specification is "do nothing").

        Adding functionality would be a feature request, not a bug report.

        The following test suite provides 100% code and feature coverage:

        use Test; BEGIN { plan tests => 1 } do '/dev/null'; ok( ! $@ ); # Empty text compiles w/o error # Test all features:

        - tye