"Strong typing vs. strong testing"

[TheFlyingDutchman]

> > Yes.  Nonetheless, the maximum() function does exactly what it is intended
> > to do *with the inputs it receives*.  The failure is outside the function;
> > it did the right thing with the data actually passed to it, the problem
> > was a user misunderstanding as to what data were being passed to it.
>
> > So there's a bug -- there's code which does not do what it was intended
> > to do.  However, that bug is in the caller, not in the maximum()
> > function.
>
> > This is an important distinction -- it means we can write a function
> > which performs that function reliably.  Now we just need to figure out
> > how to call it with valid data... :)
>
> We lost some important context somewhere along the line:
>
> > > > in C I can have a function maximum(int a, int b) that will always
> > > > work. Never blow up, and never give an invalid answer. If someone
> > > > tries to call it incorrectly it is a compile error.
>
> Please take note of the second sentence.
>
> One way or another, this claim is plainly false.  The point I was trying
> to make is not so much that the claim is false (someone else was already
> doing that), but that it can be demonstrated to be false without having
> to rely on any run-time input.
>

The second sentence is not disproved by a cast from one datatype to
another (which changes the value) that happens before maximum() is
called.