Hi, Austin Donnelly <austin@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Its doing exactly the job its meant to do! Would you rather the code > continued, using some invalid assumption, to either crash bizarrely > later or come out with artifacts in the image? I'd prefer leaving the image untouched so no important data is lost instead of bringing the whole gimp session down. > You can argue that maybe it should have been a g_return_if_fail() or > similar, but knowing about bugs early is useful. Besides, aren't > stable releases built with assertions and g_return_if_fail compiled > out? IIRC, the answer is no. We could think about defining G_DISABLE_ASSERT and G_DISABLE_CHECKS. Has anyone tried this? Salut, Sven
