On 20/11/12 12:32, Marc Lehmann wrote: > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:16:04AM +0000, Sam Bobroff <sbobr...@shoretel.com> > wrote: >> Maybe those hack strings should removed from the assert calls and be >> moved into comments in the code? > Calling this a "hack" just shows your immaturity in the C language - not > everything that is new to you is badly done. Sorry if you felt that I'd disrespected your code, that wasn't my intention (and FWIW, I'm not new to C or assert()). > > This use of assert is part of the C language that is well supported and in > very common use for a long time now, and does what it is suppsoed to do > very well and reliably. It's the only way to reliably achieve the effect > libev needs. Well... it's not an obvious, straight forward usage: it seems to me that if the "normal usage" of assert was to print a string message along with the test, assert() would take two arguments or even a format string. > > Putting error messages into a comment would completely defeat the purpose > of having runtime error messages in the first place, namely telling whats > wrong at *runtime*, when the comment is long gone. I don't agree with you here: I think assert is for reporting "bugs in the code" rather than some problem a user could understand, which is why it always prints out the file and line number at which it occurred: this information is mostly only useful to a programmer who has access to the source code. If they have access to the source and follow the assert message to where it occurred, they would immediately see a code comment. That was what I was suggesting.
What I do disagree with, a little, is that assert() is the right way to generate run-time error messages. Assert is specific, in that it crashes your code with a core dump and prints out the file and line number: it "seems" to me to be for that kind of serious problem. If, as a programmer, you have more information than that and could generate a better, user friendly, message then I think you should do so via fprintf() or similar, and follow up with an exit() or abort() only if appropriate. > If you are worried about runtime error messages, you can compile with > -DNDEBUG to get rid of them (and any warnings that might have been > enabled). > I'm not worried, since I'm not the original poster ;-) I was just trying to explain your initial answer a bit, as I thought the situation was more complicated (and therefore interesting). Again, sorry if I've offended you! I think libev is a great project :-) Sam. ________________________________ This e-mail and any attachments are confidential. If it is not intended for you, please notify the sender, and please erase and ignore the contents. _______________________________________________ libev mailing list libev@lists.schmorp.de http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libev
