That's my understanding as well, it's not completely exhaustive. But because of the way it works, it can go through exponentially more possibilities than traditional testing could in the same time.
It's actually an interesting compromise compared to traditional formal methods. It doesn't prove *absolutely* something in most cases, but it's a far more rigorous analysis approach than many approaches.
Posted Nov 8, 2012 23:04 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link]
The point is that Alloy has just the same downside as traditional testing: it can be used to prove the presence of bugs, but not their absence. Nothing wrong with that, but the article seems to suggest otherwise.