From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] GUI toolkit for Plan 9
Message-ID: <20020227145912.Q26250@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <ce0ce59eb0d583584480f57dde2bd1a2@plan9.bell-labs.com> <87heo4ylg9.fsf@becket.becket.net> <20020227122932.M26250@cackle.proxima.alt.za> <3C7CCF42.C052DD9F@acm.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <3C7CCF42.C052DD9F@acm.org>; from Graham Gallagher on Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 11:21:22PM +1100
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:59:12 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 593ca9fc-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 11:21:22PM +1100, Graham Gallagher wrote:
> 
> "Doug McIlroy (Bell Laboratories) disagrees with this argument, claiming
> that correct programs *are* made from incorrect parts. Telephone control
> programs, for example, are more than half audit code, whose business is
> to recover from unintended states, and the audit code has been known to
> mask software as well as hardware errors."

Now I'm obtuse.  From the above, I can't decide whether that means
that enough code will catch all possible errors (quis custodet
custodes?) or that one can insanely keep chasing one's own tail.

I think the jury will stay out on that one :-)

I wouldn't mind some clarification as to "this argument" mentioned in
the quote.  I don't have a copy of Gries's book handy :-)

++L