BJörn Lindqvist wrote: > On 10/12/07, Emmanuele Bassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 14:40 +0200, Mathias Hasselmann wrote: >> >> >>> So I guess what you really want is some kind of "g_soft_assert" or some >>> "g_warn_if_fail". >>> >> +1 on a g_warn_if_fail() API addition. >> > > What is wrong with: > > if (!everything_is_ok) > g_warning ("blaha"); > > ? Those double or triple negatives that the *_if_fail routines > introduce always confuses me: g_return_if_fail (!(flag != SOMETHING && > x)); ugh.. >
You messed it up somehow. It's never triple, since our normal logic is either "yes" or "no", the max is double negative which is positive. Your example would be some g_warn_if_fail (everything_is_ok, "blaha"); nothing fancy. _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list