Re: [PATCH 21.5] More fun with static checkers

Jerry> Ah, good point. I had the mindset that the assertions Jerry> always do something, but of course that is not true. Jerry> Hmmmmmm.... so how should we handle situations like this? Jerry> An "if (d) { ... }" is just masking the problem, is it not? Jerry> Wouldn't it be better to segfault there so we could find Jerry> out about the problem? In this case, { ... } will call the X11 error handler if !d; we don't want that since we (presumably) know more than X11 does about what's going on. It might be a good idea to have "else ABORT()", or we might prefer to do an autosave, then throw an error, give _strong_ warning to the user to consider cleaning up and restarting XEmacs ("Daisy, Daisy, ...."), and give a Lisp backtrace. Jerry> As in the other case, WINDOW_WIDTH is used all over the Jerry> place in window.c already, so I'm not sure this constitutes Jerry> the breaking of an abstraction. OK by me, you've looked at the code more closely than I have. -- School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Ask not how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.