On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 14:12, Greg Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
Oh. And further: it is reading the REQUEST. Not something from the network. So you can't just "cut my wireless network"
