Re: An attack on a mint
Bill Frantz <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.e.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <r02010500-1049-E2C95A3CEA4911DCB7FC0030658F0F64@[192.168.1.5]> |
[email protected] (Kevin Reid) on Tuesday, March 4, 2008 wrote: >There's another form of testing that might help more though: >Haskell's QuickCheck and its descendants. They check that an >arbitrary predicate is true for a randomly selected subset of all >possible inputs to it. > >Since the test cases are machine-generated, they are not limited to >the programmer's consideration of what needs to be tested. However, >they might well check many simple cases and miss the edge cases where >failures occur, since they ignore the structure of the algorithm >being tested. > >http://www.cs.chalmers.se/~rjmh/QuickCheck/ I have used random number driven test drivers for some testing in the past. Random number testing has turned up problems which I would not have found (until after the code went production) by normal techniques. I like the technique. Cheers - Bill ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | gets() remains as a monument | Periwinkle (408)356-8506 | to C's continuing support of | 16345 Englewood Ave www.pwpconsult.com | buffer overruns. | Los Gatos, CA 95032