RE: [cdt-dev] "assert" in cdt source vs. java compiler versionsinproject

[John Cortell <john.cortell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:15 AM 12/12/2007, Andrew Niefer wrote:

> A couple of things
> to note here: 
> 1) In general, the source plugins do not contain enough
> information to build them.  They are mainly for debugging and
> browsing purposes, if you want to build, you are better off getting the
> projects from CVS. 

I have always been able to build CDT and platform plugins by importing
them from the distribution, and I think we should take all reasonable
measures to ensure users can continue to do that. It is possible to
configure the distribution plugin so that an import operation creates a
project with specific build-target settings. Import
org.eclipse.ant.ui and you'll see. Markus's suggestion might
provide the solution. I think it's a mistake to take the position that
users should just build from cvs. You say that as if it's a no brainer,
but I doubt someone who's never done it before would agree. We should
eliminate hurdles for people that want to explore/experiment with
changing code in CDT.

> 4) By default
> asserts are not enabled at runtime, they do nothing unless you run with
> the vm argument -ea.  It may be more effective to use
> org.eclipse.core.runtime.Assert instead.

This subject is probably tangential, but I think a key advantage of using
the built-in Java assert feature is the very thing you imply is a
disadvantage--the ease in which it can be turned on-off at runtime, and
the fact that it's a standard/universal mechanism. I don't know why the
use of a home-grown assert should be necessary or encouraged; it made
sense prior to 1.4 but not now, in my opinion.

John