Re: [Libreoffice] gravity of raised assertions?

On 11/01/2011 05:50 PM, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> On Monday 31 of October 2011, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> > For me at least, this implies that all occurrences of firing assertions
> > should be tracked and fixed.
> >
> > (For me at least, this also implies that assertions---OSL_ASSERT,
> > OSL_ENSURE, OSL_FAIL, DBG_ASSERT---should only be used to flag illegal
> > program states, not for unexpected but legal ones.  I don't think there
> > is objection to this view in general.  I've only seen confusion about
> > which macro was designed for which use case, and a sort of indifference
> > a la "half of the time, OSL_ASSERT etc. are used with the wrong
> > semantics anyway; shrug.")
>
>   I think the only feasible way of fixing this is introducing a new set of
> these macros (let's say LO_WARN, LO_ASSERT), deprecating the old ones and
> converting their usage to the new ones. Otherwise we'll never know which
> OSL_ASSERT is really meant to assert and which is just a warning.

On the non-fatal side, you will definitely want to have something more 
fine grained than just OSL_TRACE (i.e., various levels, and the ability 
to specify---at runtime---which levels to see; something at least 
conceptually alike log4cxx that julien2412 mentioned).

And yes, moving to yet another fresh set of such macros is probably 
best, as you describe.

Guess I'll need to come up with a proposal over the next weeks...

Stephan