Hi Thorsten, >>I don't like the additional line. That's basically how it's done today, >>and this really becomes cumbersome over time. Writing the same pattern >>again and again isn't really fun. > > I think this is more about readability, and not about writability. And > since code is read more often than written, I second Daniel's > opinion.
In general I agree about the readability vs. writeability thingie, but in this case, I simply don't consider the line unreadable. Referece< XFoo > xFoo( xFooSupp->getFoo(), UNO_SET_THROW ); This one line even fits nicely into my mail writer, so it's not too long :); plus the upper-case is enough of an eye-catcher to show what's going on. Okay, that's a matter of taste, perhaps. > Which quite nicely brings us back to that ole error > reporting/assertion cleanup/are-RuntimeExceptions-permitted-to-catch > topic, as I pretty much assume assureNotNull is meant to assert > something in a debug build. No, it should definitively not "assert" in the sense of our current OSL assertions, but do something which can be handled reasonably in a product build, too. Throwing an "RequiredInterfaceNotImplementedException", derived from "RuntimeException", would be best IMO. > We should really, really start thinking > about that now... We don't need to think about it. We thought about it too often, we had results, just nothing happened. We need to Just Do It (TM). (And before somebody asks: As much as I would *love* to create an error-handling-assertion framework: neither do I have the full expertise, nor is this my domain. Both is different for some other participants of this thread :-P ) Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Database http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
