On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 12:42:37AM +0000, 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. > I think the name is ok, I just don't understand why one would put > such a function into the code; and why one needs another function > lyxaborter which does exactly the same, just with other output.
I regularly wonder why programs have more than a single function, especially if they do different things. Andre'
