2013/9/19 Marko Tiikkaja <ma...@joh.to> > On 9/19/13 2:08 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote: > >> I think so similar frameworks will be exists (we have some similar >> Probably You and me have a same opinion so only simple and very primitive >> assert is not enough: >> >> I see as useful feature for assertions: >> >> a) possibility to specify a message (two parametric assert) >> b) possibility to specify some threshold >> c) possibility to specify some level (exception, warning, notice) .. >> default should be exception >> c) possibility to specify a handled/unhandled exception >> > > I think these are all neat ideas on how to further improve this feature. > I'd like to see at least a) in 9.4, but I haven't yet looked at how it > could be implemented. >
Not all must be implemented in 9.4, although it is +/- only exception parametrization - not hard for implementation. But syntax should be prepared for this functionality (or should be extensible as minimum) before. Bison parser is not friendly for additional extending :( - and we can break a future extending simply just only on syntax level with bad design now. It is reason, why I am doing noise here. I remember relatively difficult extending of RAISE statement. Regards Pavel > > > Regards, > Marko Tiikkaja >
