<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 04/07/2020 22:12,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:andy@the-ashworths.org">andy@the-ashworths.org</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:02f301d65247$d27050a0$7750f1e0$@the-ashworths.org">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Consolas;
panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:FreeSans;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"DejaVu Sans";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
pre
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted Char";
margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
span.HTMLPreformattedChar
{mso-style-name:"HTML Preformatted Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"HTML Preformatted";
font-family:Consolas;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US">In
fairness a client report would usually include caveats about
the use of the statements contained therein and would
usually be part of a contract which from personal experience
will also define how comments from a client can, and should,
be used. Taking an email comment out of context and
extrapolating it to be equivalent to a conclusion contained
in a client report is a little unrealistic.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-fareast-language:EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I agree but it remains the case that PBL's statement as given is
so lacking in due qualification that it *invites* misunderstanding
and glosses over things that might foreseeably go wrong. Moreover,
I believe that there are quite reasonable grounds for believing
that the unqualified statement may actually be incorrect.<br>
</p>
<p>It's one hell of a big claim to say that there are circumstances
in which you can omit UT. I can think of many reasons why it may
be wrong and that, in consequence, failure to retain UT as a check
on the tool chain and process is unacceptably risky.</p>
<p>Does anyone here honestly believe that you could successfully
defend omitting UT in an action for negligence if a system
developed using CbyC failed and killed someone as a result of a
defect that could have been detected by UT?</p>
<p>I'm beginning to wonder whether some in the formal methods
community are becoming as brain-dead as the lumpenengineeriat.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>So far my take on this thread is:</p>
<p>David Crocker: Got it right.</p>
<p>Martyn Thomas: Terse (not a fault) but position not yet fully
clear.<br>
</p>
<p>PBL: Has made a statement that is wide open to misinterpretation
and should not be allowed to pass without vigorous challenge.</p>
<p>Me: Still not quite seeing what MT is getting at and utterly
staggered at what PBL said - indeed very trenchantly so.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>I have asked: What could go wrong that might bring into question
the proposition that CbyC makes UT unnecessary? <br>
</p>
<p>In response, I have received counter-question but so far no
answers.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Olwen</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>