Hi, On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 09:58 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > On 11/7/05, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This could also mean that developers start thinking twice before > > adding a g_warning, and start using g_message instead, thus defeating is > > purpose. g_warning is for reporting real problems, but no critical > > ones; for critical problems we have g_error. > >
But, right now, critical warnings are just swept under the carpet of the console. How many of those messages marked as "critical" are noticed? > > It's so easy to turn on abort on warnings, just run your program with: > > $ G_DEBUG=all ./myprogram > > or even: > > $ ./myprogram --g-fatal-warnings > > > > Only lazy developers let g_warnings go on indefinitely. We need to > > educate developers, that's all. > > I think you missed Vincent's original email (either that or I > misunderstood it). I believe he was talking about making g_critical() > calls result in crashes, not g_warning() calls. Exactely. That was the reason for adding a new option for G_DEBUG in the first place. > So these examples > don't do what was proposed, though they are close (just use > "G_DEBUG=fatal_criticals" instead of "G_DEBUG=all", if I understand > correctly). Another thing that I don't think has been stressed out enough is that this would be enabled only on development releases: that would mean crashing only when things are supposed to crash with the loudest bang possible, in order to be fixed fast. I agree that it could potentially scare users of the development releases - even though I don't believe that will be the case; and the "shame factor" for having a module crashing would be enough for making sure that no *critical* warning is left unchecked. Ciao, Emmanuele. -- Emmanuele Bassi - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Log: http://log.emmanuelebassi.net _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list