Re: [RFC] Replacement for "assert" in the libraries

David Glasser wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 11:00 AM, David Glasser
> <glasser_at_davidglasser.net> wrote:
>> Additionally, assert/abort generally gives good stack traces
>> when run in gdb, whereas it's trickier to track down the source of our
>> error objects.
>
> Hmm, nobody's really responded to this point of mine. Am I seriously
> the only person who appreciates how assert/abort works better with gdb
> than our errors?

No. I'm completely with you here, and have already been quite vocal in the
past in *support* of us using assert() in our libraries. I've been laying
low on this thread for fear of repeating myself for the 100th time and
coming across as beating up on Stefan. :-)

-- 
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand