Hi Philipp, >>I definately think that >> OSL_VERIFY( callSomeFooWhichSignalsSuccess( bar ) ); >>is the better (non-weird) alternative here. > > That case is weird, because you choose to ignore the return value. In > that you create a possibly not easy to find error. Ignoring return > values is just bad code. Now there certainly are case in which the > return value can be ignored safely, but then an OSL_VERIFY wouldn't be > necessary either. Actually i think we should remove OSL_VERIFY for good.
I definately disagree, along the lines described by Joerg: Assertions (in the semantics they're mostly used in our code base - I don't really want to start the "assert-and-die" discussion here, again) are usefull for notifying violations of preconditions or invariants. If, in a given situation, the preconditions/invariants suggest that a certain function call should succeed, then this implies that I would use an assertion to notify failures. Without OSL_VERIFY, the resulting code would simply be clumsy. Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Database http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
