On Friday 13 March 2015 18:02:51 Olivier Goffart wrote: > On Friday 13 March 2015 09:08:35 Thiago Macieira wrote: > > It's a minor SIC and I still call it justified. Anyone who was using > > #ifndef was making assumptions about Q_ASSERT's internals and how it is > > declared. We should all agree that making assumptions is a bad idea. > > It was documented: > > http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtglobal.html#Q_ASSERT > "It does nothing if QT_NO_DEBUG was defined during compilation."
Missing: unless QT_FORCE_ASSERTS is also defined. > And judging from the unused warning compiler gives, they were in their > rights to do it, I'd say. > Which can still be done in one line. > But we don't even need to do it. We can leave the old one as it, and use > Q_ASSERT_UNUSED for the new asserts Before we discuss the name, we have to discuss doing a 10k-line change to 1884 files in Qt. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
