On 28.01.05, Andreas Vox wrote: > John Weiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > ... > > In short: calling a function "lyxbreaker" is a Bad Idea, as it > > implies that this function somehow damages LyX. Better to call it > > "lyxstopper" or "lyxbreakpt", the latter being far more descriptive if > > its purpose. > > But lyxbreaker has " BOOST_ASSERT(false) " in its body, so it > *does* break lyx.
No, IMHO, the aim of the function is to make you aware of a broken LyX, not to break it (into pieces). Günter -- G.Milde web.de
