On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 13:56, Daniel Shahaf <[email protected]> wrote: > Greg Stein wrote on Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 13:36:27 -0400: >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 13:33, Daniel Shahaf <[email protected]> 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
