pl/frap
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/achlipala/frap.git synced 2024-12-01 08:26:20 +00:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

A typo fix

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Adam Chlipala 2016-02-17 14:17:27 -05:00
parent 5f66f4f399
commit cf65c18ebf
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
frap_book.tex
View file

@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ The license text is available at:
\chapter{Why Prove the Correctness of Programs?} \chapter{Why Prove the Correctness of Programs?}
The classic engineering disciplines all have their standard mathematical techniques that are applied to the design of any artifact, before it is deployed, to gain confidence abouts its safety, suitability for some purpose, and so on. The classic engineering disciplines all have their standard mathematical techniques that are applied to the design of any artifact, before it is deployed, to gain confidence about its safety, suitability for some purpose, and so on.
The engineers in a discipline more or less agree on what are ``the rules'' to be followed in vetting a design. The engineers in a discipline more or less agree on what are ``the rules'' to be followed in vetting a design.
Those rules are specified with a high degree of rigor, so that it isn't a matter of opinion whether a design is safe. Those rules are specified with a high degree of rigor, so that it isn't a matter of opinion whether a design is safe.
Why doesn't software engineering have a corresponding agreed-upon standard, whereby programmers convince themselves that their systems are safe, secure, and correct? Why doesn't software engineering have a corresponding agreed-upon standard, whereby programmers convince themselves that their systems are safe, secure, and correct?