Miles Bader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The right answer is to change those xasserts (and _only_ those) which
>> cause a problem or test something silly or are insanely inefficient
>>
>> How do we find and recognize all of those?
>
> In order to demonstrate that the majority are superfluous, one has to
> actually be able to make exactly the same sort of judgement for each
> xassert -- so I'm saying, if you can make that judgement, then why not
^^^
There's that "YOU" again -- please be precise -- who is that?
If nobody can or will to that (and nobody has volounteered to do it
yet) -- then it will not happen, and the xasserts continue to be a
source of irrelevant crashes for users (who as David points out have
to rely on CVS emacs for their work).
> use it on a case-by-case basis to get the best of both worlds?
> If, on the other hand, it's the case that nobody can make that
> judgement for most xasserts, then nobody is in a position to say
> xassert can safely be disabled either.
Well, the experience from enabling xasserts definitely shows that
they cannot be "safely enabled".
--
Kim F. Storm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.cua.dk
_______________________________________________
Emacs-devel mailing list
Emacs-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
