extragear/multimedia/amarok/src/podcasts

[Seb Ruiz]

On 25/07/07, Ian Monroe <ian at monroe.nu> wrote:
> On 7/24/07, Martin Aumueller <aumuell at reserv.at> wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 July 2007, Bart Cerneels wrote:
> > > SVN commit 690980 by shanachie:
> > >
> > > Some improvements.
> > >
> > > Note: the Q_ASSERTS are here for debugging. I'll remove them when the code
> > > is stable.
> >
> > IMHO, no need for removing them: it's a good way of documenting pre- and
> > post-conditions. And probably the code is wrong anyway in some place if the
> > assertion fails. And if the code is stable, it should get compiled
> > with -DQT_NO_DEBUG, and then Q_ASSERT becomes a no-op.
>
> Users do compile with debug on, so we shouldn't have asserts. Also we
> don't provide binaries, so can't do any quality control for how they
> are compiled. Like KUbuntu released all their KDE software for a
> revision or two with asserts enabled.
>
> I think a error() << is sufficient for documenting pre and post
> conditions, and it makes you think about how to make your code more
> resilient against other methods giving you bad stuff. Obviously
> someone could write a short macro that worked just like a Q_ASSERT but
> error()'ed with a line number instead of crashing the program.

Like fatal() << ?

-- 
http://www.sebruiz.net/