There you go. r1304079. You still concerned about SVN_ERR_ASSERT, or was this thread/time for nothing, and it was really about this one usage?
-g On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 14:13, Greg Stein <[email protected]> wrote: > 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"
