Patrick Lam wrote: > Something like UT_ASSERT(pNext != NULL); would be a useful assert, as opposed > to UT_ASSERT(b == true || b == false);
For any other project I'd agree. Actually, I'd probably enforce that's the only places to use it. However, for AW I've had to modify that standpoint since I both found the artifical bool we earlier used to be uninitialized, and I'd like to see the real C++ bool I've now managed to get into the code to also be enforced to be initialized, and this is disregarding a memory checker like Valgrind, BoundsChecker, Purify or whatever it might be. If it's possible for us to catch it in code I'd prefer it rather than to _depend_ upon some third-party library, especially since we _can_ check it ourselves. The earlier an error is found the easier it's corrected. What about starting with checking parameters (like preconditions) and return values (like post condition)? That should add no cruft interfering with the understanding of the real code (even that I think you are wrong in opposing checkning stuff inside a function). /Mike
