On 08/01/2013 01:44 PM, Tom Breton (Tehom) wrote: > I have reservations about trying to recover when NDEBUG isn't defined.
Ok, double-negative. Let me process that for a moment. NDEBUG not defined means we are in... Um.... DEBUG mode! (Did I get that right?) So you are saying that we shouldn't try to recover in a debug build. That's fine and I agree. The recommendation on the wiki is for recovering when NDEBUG *is* defined (a non-debug build). This way in a non-debug build, we never lose the user's data. That is very important. I could definitely see hostility towards assertions if they aren't balanced with proper handling of the problem in the non-debug build. And that might be related to why rg doesn't have many assertions. > But it brings up something I've been meaning to mention. I'm *not* > proposing that we do this any time soon. I'm just throwing it out there > as an idea. Exceptions weren't part of the original design of rg, so it's going to be difficult to work them in. It requires a different mindset. I have absolutely no experience with exceptions as I started with C++ before exceptions were available (1991 or so) or properly understood. It would be really interesting to see the pros and cons of using them on a large project. I have heard quite a bit, but haven't had any hands-on. Ted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get your SQL database under version control now! Version control is standard for application code, but databases havent caught up. So what steps can you take to put your SQL databases under version control? Why should you start doing it? Read more to find out. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=49501711&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Rosegarden-devel mailing list Rosegarden-devel@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
