On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 03:28:14PM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > I do like human readable messages. But sometimes such a message just > > makes the code harder to read (and to write). E.g., is there any real > > value in: > > > > BUG_ON(!foo, "called bar() with a foo!"); > > > > over: > > > > assert(foo); > > I think you're hinting at wanting > > BUG_ON(!foo); > > which is something that the Linux kernel has (and which is not done in > this series). Yes. I'd be fine having a single-argument BUG_ON() like that. But then, I'm not sure what it's buying us over assert(). I get why the kernel cannot use the default "dump core and exit" behavior of assert(), but that's basically what our BUG() does. -Peff
