Joe Neeman escreveu:
> On 1/24/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Joe Neeman escreveu:
>> > On 1/24/07, Han-Wen Nienhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> + if (chunks.size () != div.size () + 1)
>> >> + {
>> >> + programming_error ("did not find a valid page breaking
>> >> configuration");
>> >> + ignore_div = true;
>> >> + assert (0);
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> this is better, but can we skip the assert()?
>> >
>> > If this assert fails, it's a bug in the page breaker. I personally
>> > prefer the assert because it means that if the bug appears during
>> > "make web," I will find it instead of it being lost in the output.
>> > This check really shouldn't depend on the validity of the user input
>> > -- there are plenty of other sanity checks along the way to test for
>> > that.
>>
>> It will show up on 'make check', because it would cause a diff in the
>> logfile.
>
> Is "make check" new or have I just missed it all this time? Just for
> this, I'll remove the assert with no further complaints :)
see INSTALL where it says testing.
--
Han-Wen Nienhuys - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen
LilyPond Software Design
-- Code for Music Notation
http://www.lilypond-design.com
_______________________________________________
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
