From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80DE9BB81 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 17:01:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from web50408.mail.yahoo.com (web50408.mail.yahoo.com [206.190.38.73]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with SMTP id k1OG1FQQ031506 for ; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 17:01:16 +0100 Received: (qmail 56524 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Feb 2006 16:01:15 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=0oeD51WIC87i0Hb9VuVXW8PAkumjSvtIRV3MxSmv3SDJYVCAO2XChKFLj2ZHqWOaNaxgrXe27w/yuRdXYQbxRZZ3oAiluclm5kjJJzi3b3u4GGwRpu/3efoib3CWR+JIw7vBrSiGbUdbRJnOVujIzAhBIVWRSIutDfURJAXpY4U= ; Message-ID: <20060224160115.56522.qmail@web50408.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [82.233.237.32] by web50408.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 24 Feb 2006 08:01:15 PST Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 08:01:15 -0800 (PST) From: Joaquin Cuenca Abela Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Map.fold behavior changed To: caml-list In-Reply-To: <1AEDE2F4-2D83-416F-AFDC-7ECAF892BFBD@inria.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 43FF2DCB.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 damien:01 damien:01 unspecified:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 doligez:01 doligez:01 consistent:03 bugs:03 typo:03 logic:04 inria:05 fold:06 written:06 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.9 required=5.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, DNS_FROM_RFC_WHOIS autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 --- Damien Doligez wrote: > On Feb 24, 2006, at 14:29, EEK Cooper wrote: > > > Since the behavior was NOT unspecified, it was > reasonable to assume > > that the > > documentation suffered from a simple typo, and to > expect the > > behavior not to > > change. > > "It is documented to do something else, so we will > assume that it's > intended > to do what it does, instead of what the > documentation says." > > I don't think this is very reasonable. Expecting the documentation to be beyond flaws or making it right "by definition" also exposes you to problems when it just doesn't follow the intent of the writers. The fact that the documentation is written in english and not in a computer language doesn't make it any less vulnerable to bugs. If the implementation and documentation diverge, and both behaviours are equally logic, sound, consistent, etc. the fact that changing the documentation doesn't create any regression problems should easily tip the balance against any change in the implementation. Regards, Joaquin Cuenca Abela e98cuenc at yahoo dot com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com