On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <lasgout...@lyx.org> wrote:
> Le 08/04/2017 à 19:38, Richard Heck a écrit : > >> I saw that. It looks like a good solution, and it makes the code no less >> readable. >> > > It took me a lot of time to think about this. At some time my plan was to > use try/catch, but I do not like adding such a construct in a situation > where I know that it cannot trigger just for the sake of coverity. > > > I still think this is a bug/shortcoming of coverity. I should not have to > do that. > > In such cases maybe we should just flag it as a false positive then. Liviu > JMarc > >
