> Unit tests are "correct" by definition, because they represent the specification for the code that they test. No, those are acceptance tests. (It's really to

> Unit tests are "correct" by definition, because they represent the specification for the code that they test. No, those are acceptance tests. (It's really too bad they can't be the code. Talk about DRY!) Besides, how does one write tests for bugs they don't know about? (Or can they only be written after the fact?) Wouldn't it be helpful to have some sort of declarative specification so that the compiler itself can generate exhaustive tests?