Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!kddlab!titcca!sragwa!wsgw!socslgw!diamond!diamond
From: diamond@diamond.csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel
Subject: Re: Assertions (was: Re: Eiffel vs. C++)
Keywords: Assertions
Message-ID: <10368@socslgw.csl.sony.JUNET>
Date: 14 Jun 89 07:33:46 GMT
References: <807@batserver.cs.uq.oz> <136@ssp1.idca.tds.philips.nl>
Sender: news@csl.sony.JUNET
Reply-To: diamond@csl.sony.junet (Norman Diamond)
Organization: Sony Computer Science Laboratory Inc., Tokyo, Japan
Lines: 21

In article <136@ssp1.idca.tds.philips.nl> roelof@idca.tds.PHILIPS.nl (R. Vuurboom) writes:

>One mans pleasure is another mans...

>I had exactly the same experience the system kept breaking down in _my_
>code because I was trapping everybody else's bugs. So _I_ got to figure 
>out each time whose problem it really was :-(

>Meanwhile people started noticing that the system seemed to breaking down
>more often in _my_ code than in other peoples :-( :-(

Hmm.  I guess the real world needs assertions that print out WARNING
messages and then continue executing with incorrect results.  And
maybe even the warnings should be directed to /dev/null unless the
execution-time invoker matches the the compile-time developer.
(I wish this were rhetorical....)

--
Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.co.jp@relay.cs.net)
 The above opinions are my own.  However, if you see this at Waterloo, Stanford,
 or Anterior, then their administrators must have approved of these opinions.