On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Richard Heck <rgh...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 01/24/2012 02:13 AM, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Richard Heck <rgh...@comcast.net<mailto:
>> rgh...@comcast.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Consider:
>>
>> void Text::setFont(Cursor & cur, Font const & font)
>> {
>> LASSERT(this == cur.text(), /**/);
>> // Set the current_font
>> // Determine basis font
>> FontInfo layoutfont;
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to return here if the assertion fails?
>> Continuing seems like we're inviting disaster, whereas returning
>> just aborts what we're doing.
>>
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>
>> I've seen this same pattern a lot of places. I wouldn't propose to
>> change all of them at once, but if this seems right we could try
>> to change them as we see them.
>>
>>
>> IIRC, Andre introduced this fallback code in LASSERT. The goal is
>> eventually to have a fallback code everywhere, but not necessarily only
>> "return".
>>
>> Right, so the default, when he did the change, was just to proceed. I
> assume that is what we do if there's only a comment?
>
Exactly.
Cheers,
Abdel.
>
> Richard
>
>
