On Nov 22, 2006, at 2:01 PM, Daniel Stenning wrote:
On 22/11/06 17:46, "Charles Yeomans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, there might be tomorrow if RS implemented some sort of ASSERT
functionality, because then you might have to work around it.
Not if done in a proper extendible and configurable way
Were some sort of basic ASSERT functionality added, I predict that
the most likely result would be lots of REALbasic apps quitting just
after showing "unhandled assertion exception" messages.
Simply solved by having a belt and braces catch for it in the app. Not
exactly hard to do. And in any case the default unhandled message
would at
least have more info in it.
A "belt and braces catch" is just more shoddy error-handling.
But as long as we're on the topic, I'll shill for this feature
request.
<http://www.realsoftware.com/feedback/viewreport.php?
reportid=jtnzfuya>
Good idea. You should have added a metaconstant for Classname too.
It's not clear to me how it should work. In particular, should it be
resolved at compile-time or run time? From time to time I actually
use both in logging code.
The only hard (impossible?) bit would be a similar constant for
the test
expression. I don't see how that would be doeable without having an
Assert
keyword that automatically stored the test clause as a string in the
executable at compile time.
Right. This is definitely something that RS could only implement.
But I don't find this more useful than a descriptive label.
Charles Yeomans
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
