On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 09:54:04AM +0200, Andre Poenitz wrote: > > An assertion signals that something is wrong; by their very nature we > > cannot be positive as to what the issue is. In particular the risk of > > silent corruption becomes a lot larger. > > Not if we tell the user and give him a choice to abort or to continue at > his own risk.
Andre: A or B? You have no idea that 'A' is the one that silently corrupts your dissertation, because you don't have enough information to go on. This is exactly what you're asking of the user: "I'm too dumb to work out whether I'm going to corrupt your data; what do you think?" > There are quite a few things that we should ASSERT on that are not > crucial for the state of the system. If e.g. some cursor movement failed > or some dialog does not display correctly, it is annoying and should be > fixed at some point, but there is no reason for forcing a hard abort. I already pre-empted this in my previous post. Not for the few circumstances where we *know* it's not a serious problem, we already have a method: lyxerr. regards, john
