On Fri, 6 Jan 2017 at 11:34 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > Assertions should not be used when LilyPond has a sane way to continue: > for that case, programming errors are more appropriate. The question is > whether this is the case here: I think we are also dealing with bad > output even when assertions are disabled: right? > > But as long as it is not _dangerous_ to continue (like using 0 pointers > or uninitialized data), a programming error might be more suitable. > > -- > David Kastrup >
David, In this case it's hard to tell whether the output is bad, because I can't get past the program termination. Though I would in general agree; and moreover I wouldn't expect a 'Release' build to have assertions enabled. But this is alerting us to something that **Should not happen** at runtime, and ignoring that smells worse to me than having the assertion. Chris _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
