Austin Donnelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Its doing exactly the job its meant to do!  Would you rather the code
> continued, using some invalid assumption, to either crash bizarrely
> later or come out with artifacts in the image?

I'd prefer leaving the image untouched so no important data is lost 
instead of bringing the whole gimp session down.

> You can argue that maybe it should have been a g_return_if_fail() or
> similar, but knowing about bugs early is useful.  Besides, aren't
> stable releases built with assertions and g_return_if_fail compiled
> out?

IIRC, the answer is no. We could think about defining G_DISABLE_ASSERT and 
G_DISABLE_CHECKS. Has anyone tried this?

Salut, Sven
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to