On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 01:50:10PM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> I think we should try to make an effort to get 1.4.0cvs into a state
> where we could ask adventurous users to try it out.
>
> Right now, we've plenty of crashes, so this seems to be impossible.
> However, most of the current crashes are the direct response to an
> assert, so they are somehow home made. Of course I understand that an
> assert is there to be fixed in case it fires, but it somehow does not
> look like this will happen in finite time. Moreover, in most places,
> working around the faulty condition is possible in a way that leads
> in the worst case to aborting the current operation but does not crash
> the whole of lyx.
>
> That's why I propose changing some/most/all asserts to something less
> brutish, i.e. an exception carrying the same information as the assert
> that will be caught in the main loop (i.e. the outermost dispatch or
> even in the frontends).
This seems an excellent route towards dataloss*. CVS is nowhere near a
state where we can ask users to try it, and we shouldn't pretend it is
by commenting out critical internal consistency checks.
regards
john
[*] user saves/uses a damaged lyx file that appears to work, carries it
around like that until the original is gone
