Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!apple!uokmax!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!necisa!boyd
From: boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz (Boyd Roberts)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: asserts and unexpected returns (was: Re: Assert)
Message-ID: <1939@necisa.ho.necisa.oz>
Date: 15 Nov 90 22:34:03 GMT
References: <18647@rpp386.cactus.org> <4057@awdprime.UUCP> <18658@rpp386.cactus.org> <4093@awdprime.UUCP> <18662@rpp386.cactus.org> <4157@awdprime.UUCP> <18717@rpp386.cactus.org> <4643@segue.segue.com> <18733@rpp386.cactus.org>
Organization: NEC Information Systems Australia Pty. Ltd.
Lines: 13

In article <18733@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes:
>...  In any case, Dave is arguing against reality - the exception proves
>the argument in this case, and the argument was that assert cannot be
>relied on to always exit.

And nor can your CPU be relied upon to function after you've stuck an
axe through it.  Your whole argument is based on the premise that
things don't work `normally' after you've broken them.  Get serious.


Boyd Roberts			boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au

``When the going gets wierd, the weird turn pro...''