Re: [Nbd] [PATCH 1/1] server: remove non-reachable call to err()
- To: Tuomas Räsänen <tuomasjjrasanen@...1261...>
- Cc: nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net, Tuomas Räsänen <tuomasjjrasanen@...1258...>
- Subject: Re: [Nbd] [PATCH 1/1] server: remove non-reachable call to err()
- From: Wouter Verhelst <w@...112...>
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 00:28:45 +0100
- Message-id: <20130310232845.GB23754@...3...>
- In-reply-to: <20130310213810.GA22370@...1259...>
- References: <4872930b34a4b68d73810e4e31f9fa0d522e0aac.1362947875.git.tuomasjjrasanen@...1261...> <20130310211507.GA23754@...3...> <20130310213810.GA22370@...1259...>
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 11:38:10PM +0200, Tuomas Räsänen wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 10:15:07PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> >
> > Mmm. Checking for programmer error isn't necessarily a bad idea, though.
> > Yes, it's best done at compile time, but that isn't always possible.
> >
> > Perhaps change it into an assert() instead?
> >
>
> Very well, assert() might be a good idea and I even thought it for a
> second or two, but then the pedantic side of me took over. Assert-statements
> do burn my eyes, you know.
Why?
> But that should be easily fixed by wearing
> PRAGMATISM-protective glasses more often while coding.
>
> --
> Tuomas
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester
> Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the
> endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to
> tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Nbd-general mailing list
> Nbd-general@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nbd-general
>
--
Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy requires you
to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once, add a voucher, and
save on postage.
Reply to: