No, of course it would not be an "additional feature" request. It would be an original feature request. "This code doesn't have feature $X" is not the same as "This code is buggy". Failing to implement required features makes the code incomplete. It doesn't mean the code contains any bugs.

Code being bug-free obviously does not mean that there are no features that it leaves unsatisfied.

But the empty program successfully implements the following important features:

1. Compiles without errors
2. Validates all required inputs
3. Reproduces itself
4. Does not allow any SQL injection attacks
5. Produces all output in UTF-16
6. Produces all output in 7-bit ASCII
7. Produces all output in Big5
8. Logs detailed error reports if any operation it attempts fails
9. Exits immediately if used as part of any illegal or immoral activity
10. All output is automatically translated into the viewer's native language, even if there are multiple simultaneous viewers
11. All network communication is encrypted so that not only can the NSA never decrypt a single byte of it, they can't even detect it

You forgot some: 12. Has minimal cpu, memory & IO requirements :)

---

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.

Failing to implement required features makes the code incomplete. It doesn't mean the code contains any bugs.

That's an utterly weird definition of not having bugs.

Pray tell me, how do you define a bug? I guess if the requirement is to multiply two numbers $x, and $y, $x + $y isn't a bug, it's merely incomplete (it just doesn't do the right thing yet for inputs other than (0, 0) or (2, 2)).