On 22/11/06 17:46, "Charles Yeomans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, there might be tomorrow if RS implemented some sort of ASSERT > functionality, because then you might have to work around it. Not if done in a proper extendible and configurable way > Were some sort of basic ASSERT functionality added, I predict that > the most likely result would be lots of REALbasic apps quitting just > after showing "unhandled assertion exception" messages. Simply solved by having a belt and braces catch for it in the app. Not exactly hard to do. And in any case the default unhandled message would at least have more info in it. > But as long as we're on the topic, I'll shill for this feature request. > > <http://www.realsoftware.com/feedback/viewreport.php?reportid=jtnzfuya> Good idea. You should have added a metaconstant for Classname too. The only hard (impossible?) bit would be a similar constant for the test expression. I don't see how that would be doeable without having an Assert keyword that automatically stored the test clause as a string in the executable at compile time. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
