No, a spec is not code. It's possible to describe simple behavior that's nevertheless difficult to implement. Consider, say,

  fn sin(x: f16) -> f16

There are only 64k different f16s. Easy enough to test them all. A given sin() is either correct or it's not.

Yet sin() here can have a large number of different implementations. The spec alone under-determines the actual code.

▲ mungoman2 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well, the spec can of course define constraints of how the function is implemented.

▲ 9rx 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It says a sufficiently detailed spec is code. Your spec lacks details that could be added.

	▲	quotemstr 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If you're defining "spec" that way, the word is meaningless. The point of a spec is what it doesn't say.