BJörn Lindqvist wrote:
> On 10/12/07, Emmanuele Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 14:40 +0200, Mathias Hasselmann wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So I guess what you really want is some kind of "g_soft_assert" or some
>>> "g_warn_if_fail".
>>>
>> +1 on a g_warn_if_fail() API addition.
>>
>
> What is wrong with:
>
> if (!everything_is_ok)
> g_warning ("blaha");
>
> ? Those double or triple negatives that the *_if_fail routines
> introduce always confuses me: g_return_if_fail (!(flag != SOMETHING &&
> x)); ugh..
>
You messed it up somehow. It's never triple, since our normal logic
is either "yes" or "no", the max is double negative which is positive.
Your example would be some
g_warn_if_fail (everything_is_ok, "blaha");
nothing fancy.
_______________________________________________
gtk-devel-list mailing list
gtk-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list
