On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 06:16:34PM -0500, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: > According to my software engineering professors, a program should > always handle any input data without an assertion failure. Assertions > are for catching bugs in internal invariants. Therefore, any time an > assertion failure is reached, it represents a bug.
My central error-handling goal has been to compactly express my assumptions in a form that will prevent them from being violated in ignorance. Should I have different goals? > If Rainbow wants to disallow this, it should raise a specific exception. Given your knowledge of Rainbow's clients, both human and software, what would be gained by spending the time, documentation, and code required to create and raise a specific exception for each unique way to violate my assumptions? > > > Can you enter a ticket about this? I don't know if Rainbow should > > > abort the launch in these cases, but certainly should give a more > > > helpful message. Again, who is the audience for the message? It was clearly helpful for Tomeu and me; it was clearly not as helpful for Waqas. Waqas - what could Rainbow have done better for you? Michael _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
