[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Does anyone have "assert" blindness ?
- From: Axel Kittenberger <axkibe@...>
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 12:02:19 +0100
In my opinion the core of that problem results in the Lua style of
setting things to nil on error and hoping the nil will raise an error
later on, instead of a more elaborated error system. The careful coder
thus has to assert anything to be not nil, if s/he wants the error to
be reported where it was caused, or worse to be oversighted at all
(like e.g. a nil into a variable which is later tested as a boolean
On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Jayanth Acharya <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Does anyone else have this case of acute "assert" blindness, sometimes...
> looking at some Lua code ?
> Came accross some examples, where literally almost every functioncall has an
> assert(). It is somewhat painful to look thru the asserts, and actually
> figure out the logic within.
> Might like to modify SciTE syntax-highlighting config to treat assert as a
> keyword, s.t. I can atleast focus on the main logic.
> Might be useful to have some syntactic sugar, like
> "require(assertion_on_everything_that_makes_sense)" s.t. at runtime
> everything is treated as if it's wrapped in an assert() !! Anyone ?