On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 14:12, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 13:56, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de> wrote:
>> Greg Stein wrote on Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 13:36:27 -0400:
>>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 13:33, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de> wrote:
>>> > Greg Stein wrote on Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 13:19:41 -0400:
>>> >...
>>> >> Daniel removed one of these ASSERT uses a day or two ago. My
>>> >> assumption was that he was referring to that, rather than the ###.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Yes, by "these" I referred to to the use of assert(), abort(), and
>>> > svn_error__malfunction().
>>>
>>> Oh, I definitely don't want to see any assert() or abort() calls. With
>>> you there.
>>>
>>> But if you're suggesting that we stop using SVN_ERR_ASSERT(), then
>>> that is a much larger question. I see no problem using them. "If we
>>> don't have what we expect, then we've got big problems."
>>>
>>
>> Huh? In the code you just added, if I cut your wireless network wire
>> then your libsvn_ra_serf would raise an assertion. That's not the
>> intended use of SVN_ERR_ASSERT().
>>
>> Why didn't you write
>>
>> if (status != APR_EOF && status != APR_SUCCESS)
>> return svn_error_createf(); /* or svn_error_wrap_apr() */
>>
>> ?
>
> Did you read the comment just above that? Expediency to get the code
> written to the point where I could test it.
>
> So where is your actual problem? My expedient code, or SVN_ERR_ASSERT?
> You've been focusing on the latter, so we now have this thread. Which?
>
> -g
Oh. And further: it is reading the REQUEST. Not something from the
network. So you can't just "cut my wireless network"
Received on 2012-03-22 19:13:41 CET