| High-level
answer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| • | For
perfective maintenance, the objective should |
||||||||||||
| be
for the cost of the change in the implementation |
|||||||||||||
| to
be proportional to the cost of the change in the |
|||||||||||||
| specification
(design) |
|||||||||||||
| – | Ex:
Allowing dates for the year 2000 is (at most) a |
||||||||||||
| small
specification change |
|||||||||||||
| – | Ex:
Adding call forwarding is a more complicated |
||||||||||||
| specification
change |
|||||||||||||
| – | Ex:
Converting a compiler into an ATM machine is … |
||||||||||||
