On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 16:40:13 +0200, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
On 09/01/2011 09:02 AM, Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:35:51 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/30/2011 6:28 PM, Brad Roberts wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/30/2011 5:08 PM, Bernard Helyer wrote:
On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:19:00 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
Looking for corruption of the data.
Why doesn't it check for null, and pass if no invariant is defined?
Because the hardware does the null check for you, which is what a seg
fault is.
The frequency with which this comes up and the lack of converts to
that
point of view ought to tell you something here. :)
I am simply baffled by it.
Walter, I don't think there is a single person in this community, at
least not among the vocal ones, who agrees with you on this. It is a
case where the language completely fails to do what 99.9% of users
expect
of it.
I think 99.9% would be an underestimation. Who'd be part of the 0.1%?
Andrei
Well I agree that segfaults are way more informative than throwing an
AssertError.
It does have less issues with incorrect stack unwinding and the core file
still contains
register data. This is biased somewhat by using FreeBSD. I never get stack
traces for exceptions
but always a core dump.
martin
