Re: [boost] Re: Re: Re: Re: improved assertions?

From: Mickael Pointier (mpointie_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-20 07:35:27

> > > > >       On Unix, for example, you want a core dump, not an
exception.
> > > >
> > > >   I didn't do much Unix programming, but I commonly
> > > >   don't want my apps to core dump at a customer's.
> > >
> > > You don't want it to assert either. The information in a core dump is
> more
> > > useful to you and the customer than a call stack description, and no
> more
> > > confusing.
>
> >   I don't think it is more useful for the customer,
> >   since are core dump usually also means that they
> >   lost their work.
>
> assert() == abort() on failure
> or at least, that's what I thought you meant.
>
> I didn't realize you were trying to recover from a failed assertion.
> Dangerous, but sometimes it's the only practical approach.

In the industry I'm working, we do not have the right to
have a failing product. So we try (hard) to make the program
recover. In Debug versions the code is cluttered with myriad
of asserts, and in Release it's replaced by error handling.

No, this is not survival systems for hospital, it's console
video games. If the game crash, the constructor refuses the
approval for the game. Simple and definitive way :'(

    Mickael Pointier