On Saturday 07 Jun 2003 6:45 pm, Guillaume Laurent wrote: > On Saturday 07 June 2003 14:00, Levi Burton wrote: > > So, basically checking every assumption that *pointer is not null > > with an assert(). I am guessing thats a shit-load of work.
I think most of the work is in finding the places where it would actually make sense to assert (for example, there's no point in testing a pointer if you've just got it back from new(), there's no point in testing a pointer merely for an assert if you're just about to dereference it anyway, etc). If you're going to put in that effort, you might as well simply do a better job of recovering correctly from such problems, rather than just asserting. Asserts are handy in some circumstances, but they're more something you write as you write the code than something you work to add afterwards. And they can cause problems -- I have twice recently had to remove asserts because they were causing crashes in cases where the assumption they were testing was not in fact true any more (i.e. a null value was actually acceptable, or whatever). > I don't mean to > brag but I agree with Rich, given our features list our stability > is fairly good. Given that this thread was inspired by a comment of mine about how our code could use some improvement, I think the subject is certainly fair game. I just don't think assert is quite the answer. Chris ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Etnus, makers of TotalView, The best thread debugger on the planet. Designed with thread debugging features you've never dreamed of, try TotalView 6 free at www.etnus.com. _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
