On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 09:44 -0700, Brian J. Tarricone wrote: > Marco Barisione wrote: > > Il giorno mer, 17/10/2007 alle 11.56 +0200, Tim Janik ha scritto: > >> - add g_warn_if_fail (condition); which produces a critical > >> warning about failing assertions but contrary to g_assert > >> returns. > > > > If it's called g_warn_if_fail() I would expect a g_warning() not a > > g_critical(). > > Agreed -- and of course g_return_if_fail() does a g_warning(), so doing > a g_warning() on g_warn_if_fail() is kinda redundant. How about > g_critical_if_fail()? > > It's a shame tho that we can't encode the "it returns if it fails" > behavior in the name as well
I think the proposal is that g_warn_if_fail() shall return (in contrast to g_assert(), which most of the time aborts the program), but it shall not return from the function calling it. g_warn_if_fail() is supposed to do exactly what its name implies: Just print a warning if a condition is not met. > -- g_return_if_fail() is very clear what it > does (IMO, the fact that it also does a g_warning() is a > debugging-related bonus, not its primary purpose). g_critical_if_fail() > sorta sounds like all it does is do a g_critical() if the condition > fails, and then continues on from that point. I suppose > g_critical_return_if_fail() is a bit verbose (esp. when you consider > g_critical_return_val_if_fail() is even longer). But I guess good API > docs will suffice ^_^. > Armin _______________________________________________ gtk-devel-list mailing list gtk-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-devel-list