John Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ... > In short: calling a function "lyxbreaker" is a Bad Idea, as it > implies that this function somehow damages LyX. Better to call it > "lyxstopper" or "lyxbreakpt", the latter being far more descriptive if > its purpose.
But lyxbreaker has " BOOST_ASSERT(false) " in its body, so it *does* break lyx. I think the name is ok, I just don't understand why one would put such a function into the code; and why one needs another function lyxaborter which does exactly the same, just with other output. /Andreas
