Lars Gullik Bj?nnes wrote: > Rob Lahaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>>>Rob Lahaye <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>| Should instead a "#include <cassert>" be added at the top of this file? >>>>> >>>>>Either that or we should use lyx::support::abort instead. >>>>>(I'll probably prefere that.) >>>> >>>| Either way. >>>| As it is now, CVS doesn't compile :(. >>> >>>... on your system. >> > | Have I missed something? > | Is LyX developped for one particular system, or a particular > | subset of systems only? > > No. > > but your statement "CVS doesn't compile", is not true in general, It > is only true on your system and systems like that. (And I have no idea > what kind of system that is.)
FreeBSD, using gcc 3.3.1. > I'll certainly help getting things to work for you. (Just forget the > trivial case with the assert.) But the onus will be on you to check > that a certain "fix" resolves the problem. > > In this specific case an include of <cassert> would (should) work. > Please test it. Ah, sorry, I have caused unnecessary confusion then. I tried the <cassert> inclusion first and found it solved the problem. I then send the email to the list and suggested the change. However, you preferred "lyx::support::abort", which I do not understand. So it's my working fix against your preference; and yes, "working" applies to my system :). It's then better you choose how to fix it and apply the fix, I think. Unless you tell me in more detail what your abort-preference actually implies. R.
