On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 04:33, Julian Foad <julianf...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> gst...@apache.org wrote:
>>>> +svn_ra_serf__copy_into_spillbuf(svn_spillbuf_t **spillbuf,
>>>> + serf_bucket_t *bkt,
>>>> + apr_pool_t *result_pool,
>>>> + apr_pool_t *scratch_pool)
>>>> +{
>>>> + status = serf_bucket_read(bkt, SERF_READ_ALL_AVAIL, &data, &len);
>>>> +
>>>> + /* ### we should throw an error, if the bucket does. */
>>>> + SVN_ERR_ASSERT(status == APR_SUCCESS || status == APR_EOF);
>>>
>>> Can we please avoid these in new code?
>>
>> Why?
>
> Hi Greg. I'm puzzled by your response. You wrote "### we should throw an
> error" -- and now you're asking Daniel why?
Daniel removed one of these ASSERT uses a day or two ago. My
assumption was that he was referring to that, rather than the ###.
>> I see no problem here: it will just bail out with an error.
>
> Not true in general; only if the application writer explicitly sets the
> malfunction handler to do so.
I'm assuming that all applications *do* set it to return. We use
SVN_ERR_ASSERT() liberally upon that assumption.
> Anyway, the point is not only about how the application exits, but about
> writing code that says what we mean.
I have no idea what you mean here.
Cheers,
-g
