I get different stories about this all the time from different people.
It would be great to have them as part of the style guide so that I
can refer to it.
One that you didn't cover is the invariant case. I originally used
DCHECKs, but it seems like if you're just going to crash on the next
line anyway, a CHECK makes more sense.
- a
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Evan Martin <e...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> In many places we have "shouldn't-happen" situations where a functon
> might return NULL or false.
> Coming from working on Google code you might be tempted to use
> CHECK(foobar != NULL).
>
> But in client software, things that should never happen end up
> happening all the time because of someone's strange computer setup or
> cosmic rays. Our pattern is:
>
> 1) If it is just "this is highly unlikely", attempt to recover from the
> problem.
> 2) If it is "this shouldn't happen, and if it does a developer should
> learn about it", use something like
> if (!keyboard_has_spacebar) {
> NOTREACHED() << " this keyboard is crazy, maybe our detection code
> is wrong?";
> return false; // attempt recovery anyway
> }
> 3) If it really is something that's so bad that it's a security
> problem if we continue, you should use CHECK(). But these should be
> very rare.
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
