On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:40:53 +0000 Tom Hacohen
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On 18/01/13 13:35, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Stefan Schmidt
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> We must bump required check's version. Could u do it?
> >>
> >> I would have done if I liked the idea. :) My problem is that the
> >> ubuntu version listed above is the one I have installed on my work
> >> machine. So I see the actual build problem.
> >
> > well, update it or --with-tests=none.
> >
> > the problem in using fail_unless() and fail_if() is that they are
> > very non-helpful to debug.
> >
> 
> Libcheck has "_ck_assert_int" which is a generic thing that should be 
> used like this:
> _ck_assert_int(5, <, 7);
> 
> I don't really understand why he doesn't only use this. But anyhow, I 
> suggest we just steal this and use it all the time as it's way more 
> clear than his alternatives and are supported in all libcheck
> versions. Even if it wasn't supported, it's really easy to implement:
> #define _ck_assert_int(X, O, Y) ck_assert_msg((X) O (Y), "Assertion 
> '"#X#O#Y"' failed: "#X"==%d, "#Y"==%d", X, Y)
> 
> So why not just use that?

But then I wont be able to rant about rampant "justupdatitis".  :-)

Good idea Tom.

-- 
A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants
coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master HTML5, CSS3, ASP.NET, MVC, AJAX, Knockout.js, Web API and
much more. Get web development skills now with LearnDevNow -
350+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts.
SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122812
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Reply via email to