Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In general I agree about the readability vs. writeability thingie, but > in this case, I simply don't consider the line unreadable. > > Referece< XFoo > xFoo( xFooSupp->getFoo(), UNO_SET_THROW ); > I could live with that, too - only that I dislike the general direction of semantic overloading, instead of keeping things nicely separated (if they are orthogonal). Daniel's assertNonNull can be used at tons of other places, not only for this very specific use case. > > Which quite nicely brings us back to that ole error > > reporting/assertion cleanup/are-RuntimeExceptions-permitted-to-catch > > topic, as I pretty much assume assureNotNull is meant to assert > > something in a debug build. > > No, it should definitively not "assert" in the sense of our current OSL > assertions, but do something which can be handled reasonably in a > product build, too. Throwing an > "RequiredInterfaceNotImplementedException", derived from > "RuntimeException", would be best IMO. > Sure, I'm with you here. > > We should really, really start thinking > > about that now... > > We don't need to think about it. We thought about it too often, we had > results, just nothing happened. We need to Just Do It (TM). > My memory is failing on me for this - what have been those results? Cheers, -- Thorsten If you're not failing some of the time, you're not trying hard enough. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
