Hi,
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
