https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408539
--- Comment #6 from Christoph Cullmann ---
The assert is there that I/we get a nicer kind of failure in a debug build if
one ever breaks that invariant during development and to document the intend.
Why should I remove that?
If I remove it and break
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408539
--- Comment #5 from RJVB ---
Well, you kept the assert I tripped over, didn't you? Either you had your
reasons for that, or that just proves one of my points above :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408539
--- Comment #4 from Christoph Cullmann ---
I don't think that it makes sense to apply patches to our code for issues that
got fixed just to change the coding style to your needs.
But I can't stop people doing things they like.
As your change will
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408539
--- Comment #3 from RJVB ---
I can indeed no longer reproduce the crash with that commit in place (but will
keep my own mod in place too).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408539
--- Comment #2 from RJVB ---
>And no, the assert is correct.
>If we arrive here with a invalid iterator, all is broken, this shall no happen.
Well, I don't agree with that. I have said it before and will continue to
hammer it down: it's unprofessional
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408539
Christoph Cullmann changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REPORTED|RESOLVED
CC|
