My cross-posting to dev and qa lists is deliberate; if you
find that it is the wrong thing to do, I shall have to
apologize.
On the dev list,
On Mon, 2011-10-31 at 10:31 -0400, Terrence Enger wrote:
> There has been a lot of discussion in the past about raised
> assertions and how seriously they s
On 11/01/2011 05:50 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
On Monday 31 of October 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
For me at least, this implies that all occurrences of firing assertions
should be tracked and fixed.
(For me at least, this also implies that assertions---OSL_ASSERT,
OSL_ENSURE, OSL_FAIL, DBG_ASSER
I know that it comes from Apache but what about
http://logging.apache.org/log4cxx/ ?
log4j is quite used in Java world, I don't know the state of log4cxx but it
could help.
--
View this message in context:
http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/gravity-of-raised-assertions-tp3467970p3471278.html
Se
On Monday 31 of October 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> For me at least, this implies that all occurrences of firing assertions
> should be tracked and fixed.
>
> (For me at least, this also implies that assertions---OSL_ASSERT,
> OSL_ENSURE, OSL_FAIL, DBG_ASSERT---should only be used to flag illeg
On 10/31/2011 03:31 PM, Terrence Enger wrote:
There has been a lot of discussion in the past about raised
assertions and how seriously they should be treated. Is
there a current concensus?
I raise the question again for no better reason than that
even a newbie like me can see a raised assertion
There has been a lot of discussion in the past about raised
assertions and how seriously they should be treated. Is
there a current concensus?
I raise the question again for no better reason than that
even a newbie like me can see a raised assertion and collect
a backtrace. Guidance welcome.
Th