Satisfying preconditions is a requirement to make functioning programs.
The insanity would be assuming that every function is valid for the Cartesian product of all possible of its arguments.
What he probably needs is an assert
The insanity would be assuming that every function is valid for the Cartesian product of all possible of its arguments.
What he probably needs is an assert
> The insanity would be assuming that every function is valid for the Cartesian product of all possible of its arguments.
Would it? That reminds me of a recent post on HN about proving the long (binary) division algorithm with Hoare's logic. It uses the "d > 0" precondition and proves that, indeed, the algorithm arrives at the required postcondition. However, the algorithm still terminates and produces something even when d == 0. What does it computes in this case? Is it useful? Should such questions even be considered?
Yes, a better understanding of the problem gives you a better understanding of the preconditions. Always ask if you have that right and weaken accordingly.
In general you can write better code when you can make assumptions.
Code to handle every possibility is filled with error prone branching, that reduplicates effort at every function.