Andre Poenitz wrote: > I think we should try to make an effort to get 1.4.0cvs into a state > where we could ask adventurous users to try it out. > > Right now, we've plenty of crashes, so this seems to be impossible. > However, most of the current crashes are the direct response to an > assert, so they are somehow home made. Of course I understand that an > assert is there to be fixed in case it fires, but it somehow does not > look like this will happen in finite time. Moreover, in most places, > working around the faulty condition is possible in a way that leads > in the worst case to aborting the current operation but does not crash > the whole of lyx. > > That's why I propose changing some/most/all asserts to something less > brutish, i.e. an exception carrying the same information as the assert > that will be caught in the main loop (i.e. the outermost dispatch or > even in the frontends). > > Opinions?
Mmm.. I think this is a bit too early. Right now it's too easy to find bugs and crashes, I don't see the usefulness of having adventurous users testing... nor the list flooded with backtraces... What we need is more code-fixers (btw, from a brief read of the list, I got the impression that JM has been diving in the coordinate business (!)). I'm compiling your coordinates rewrite patch, and I'll try to work a bit on it in the next few days. Alfredo, phd for almost a day ;-)
