Re: xassert in dispextern.h

[storm@cua.dk (Kim F. Storm)]

Miles Bader <snogglethorpe@gmail.com> writes:

>>    The right answer is to change those xasserts (and _only_ those) which
>>    cause a problem or test something silly or are insanely inefficient
>> 
>> How do we find and recognize all of those?
>
> In order to demonstrate that the majority are superfluous, one has to
> actually be able to make exactly the same sort of judgement for each
> xassert -- so I'm saying, if you can make that judgement, then why not
                               ^^^
There's that "YOU" again -- please be precise -- who is that?

If nobody can or will to that (and nobody has volounteered to do it
yet) -- then it will not happen, and the xasserts continue to be a
source of irrelevant crashes for users (who as David points out have
to rely on CVS emacs for their work).

> use it on a case-by-case basis to get the best of both worlds?

> If, on the other hand, it's the case that nobody can make that
> judgement for most xasserts, then nobody is in a position to say
> xassert can safely be disabled either.

Well, the experience from enabling xasserts definitely shows that
they cannot be "safely enabled".

-- 
Kim F. Storm <storm@cua.dk> http://www.cua.dk