Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Ah, thanks! I always get confused about CHECK() as well! Maybe it should >> be renamed to ASSERT()? But that would require flipping all the if() >> statements around them as well :/ > > Exactly, it's the opposite of assert (ASSERT_NOT %-), that > CHECK(!found) is "assert not not found", right?) and it throws me off > every. single. time. Yup, me too, I have to basically infer the right meaning from the surrounding if statements (i.e., whether it triggers an error path or not). > Ideally we complete the set of ASSERT_XXX() macros and convert as much > as possible to that. We can also have just generic ASSERT() for all > other complicated cases. Totally on board with that! I'll try to remember to fix any selftests I fiddle with (and not introduce any new uses of CHECK() of course). -Toke
