int 3 gives a continuable exception, so if your debugger is up to it (as I would expect it would) then continuing should be a no-brainer. If it's not, though, I'm not much of an expert any deeper than what we've touched on, so you'll be on your own. ;/

"dan" <dan_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:btbn6d$2bll$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >Sure. ENSURE is as good as anything else. :)
>
> Better than "assert", which, in English, means to "proclaim" or
"emphatically
> say";  NOT to "verify" or "ensure" or "test" as it does.  ;-)
>
> By the way, if you haven't gone to sleep yet, is there a way I can
continue
> debugging after an int 3?  I want to be able to single step or continue
running
> after an ENSURE clause fails, if I want to.  Right now the debugger stops,
and
> all I can do is re-start execution...
>
> dan
>
>

>int 3 gives a continuable exception, so if your debugger is up to it (as I would expect it would) then continuing should be a no-brainer. If it's not, though, I'm not much of an expert any deeper than what we've touched on, so you'll be on your own. ;/

You've been IMMENSLY helpful. My previous implementation of ENSURE() had a class with a static function that had to be in a CPP file, plus a fancy macro, and an overloaded global comma operator. Your int 3 tip got all that down to 5 lines, for me.

As for continuing, maybe Walter knows what's going on. But for now I can use this as it is, I don't mind re-starting the debugging session, for now.

And, by the way, thanks Walter;  deleting the prj file worked. (Actually, I deleted all the files there.) Now I back them up twice a day.

Forgive my ignorance but why the do and while? What's wrong if just
 # define verify(x) if( !((x)) ) asm int 3;
or
 # define verify(x) { if( !((x)) ) asm int 3; }



> //file: verify.hpp
> #ifndef VERIFY_HPP
> #define VERIFY_HPP
>
> #ifdef _DEBUG
> # define verify(x) do{ if( !((x)) ) asm int 3; }while(0)
> #else
> # define verify(x) (void)(0)
> #endif
>
> /*
> // Usage example:
> #include "verify.hpp"
> #include <stdio.h>
> char first_char( char const * s )
> {
> verify( s && ::strlen(s) );
> return s[0];
> }
> // Cheers!
> // dan
> */
>
> #endif
>
>

"Sean" <seanchen@telus.net> wrote:

> Forgive my ignorance but why the do and while? What's wrong if just
>  # define verify(x) if( !((x)) ) asm int 3;
> or
>  # define verify(x) { if( !((x)) ) asm int 3; }

I'll ignore "your ignorance" :)
What would the compiler say about:
  if (foo)
    verify (x);
  else verify (y);

The ';' would cause a parse error in both cases. And in the 1st case, the 'else' wouldn't be for the outer 'if', but the one in the macro.

--gv

I see, thanks.

"Gisle Vanem" <giva@users.sourceforge.net> ???? news:btdi7k$2759$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Sean" <seanchen@telus.net> wrote:
>
> > Forgive my ignorance but why the do and while? What's wrong if just
> >  # define verify(x) if( !((x)) ) asm int 3;
> > or
> >  # define verify(x) { if( !((x)) ) asm int 3; }
>
> I'll ignore "your ignorance" :)
> What would the compiler say about:
>   if (foo)
>     verify (x);
>   else verify (y);
>
> The ';' would cause a parse error in both cases. And in the 1st case, the 'else' wouldn't be for the outer 'if', but the one in the macro.
>
> --gv

For if cases I usually use following form:
    #define check(x) if (x) do_something; else
Than you are forced to write ; after check, i.e.    check(a>b);
But you have no problems with else and other stuff.

Nic Tiger.

"Sean" <seanchen@telus.net> wrote in message news:btdp5g$2h08$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I see, thanks.
>
> "Gisle Vanem" <giva@users.sourceforge.net> ???? news:btdi7k$2759$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > "Sean" <seanchen@telus.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Forgive my ignorance but why the do and while? What's wrong if just
> > >  # define verify(x) if( !((x)) ) asm int 3;
> > > or
> > >  # define verify(x) { if( !((x)) ) asm int 3; }
> >
> > I'll ignore "your ignorance" :)
> > What would the compiler say about:
> >   if (foo)
> >     verify (x);
> >   else verify (y);
> >
> > The ';' would cause a parse error in both cases. And in the 1st case,
the
> > 'else' wouldn't be for the outer 'if', but the one in the macro.
> >
> > --gv
>
>