Assert and the optional Message

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2012-03-10 17:48, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Saturday, March 10, 2012 16:53:42 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2012-03-09 18:59, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>> This opens up the question of, what's the *recommended* way of writing
>>> unittests that check for these sorts of stuff?
>>>
>>> For example, I believe in being thorough in unit tests, so I like to use
>>> them to verify that the complicated in-contract I just wrote actually
>>> prevents the erroneous calls that I *think* it prevents. But if catching
>>> AssertError's may leave the program in an undefined state, then that
>>> pretty much invalidates any further testing past that point (the program
>>> may appear to work when compiled with -funittest but actually fail in
>>> release mode).
>>>
>>> I agree, though, that catching Errors outside of unittests is a very,
>>> very bad idea in general.
>>
>> I don't see what's so bad in making AssertError an exception instead of
>> an error.
>
> Then
>
> catch(Excetion e) {}
>
> would catch it. This would be a huge problem in normal code. Assertions are
> supposed to kill the program. This is specifically mentioned in TDPL.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

Maybe so. But the current design is broken and need to be fixed somehow.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg