Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

New implementation. #18

Merged
merged 13 commits into from
Aug 26, 2024
Merged

New implementation. #18

merged 13 commits into from
Aug 26, 2024

Conversation

dabrahams
Copy link
Contributor

Tests need updating:

  • ensure that ADOBE_CONTRACT_VIOLATION=minimal doesn't cause verbose output
  • ensure that misconfiguration produces a good message

@dabrahams dabrahams marked this pull request as draft August 23, 2024 01:22
@dabrahams dabrahams requested a review from sean-parent August 23, 2024 01:27
Copy link
Member

@sean-parent sean-parent left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM - I'm assuming subsequent PRs to update the readme.
Do we want a macro to query the configuration?

#if !ADOBE_CONTRACT_CONFIGURATION(unsafe)
int _uncaught_count = std::uncaught_exceptions();
#endif
...

// INTERNAL_ADOBE_CONTRACT_VIOLATION_BEHAVIOR is not a function-style
// macro because it lets us give a better diagnostic on
// misconfiguration.
#ifndef ADOBE_CONTRACT_VIOLATION// Default is verbose
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
#ifndef ADOBE_CONTRACT_VIOLATION// Default is verbose
#ifndef ADOBE_CONTRACT_VIOLATION // Default is verbose

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You can do that, but clang-format will put it back to the way it is. If you want to change that you need to update the formatting file.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Okay - I'll look at updating the format file (the current one is horrible).

@dabrahams
Copy link
Contributor Author

Do we want a macro to query the configuration?

You tell me! Do you have a use-case?

@sean-parent
Copy link
Member

Do we want a macro to query the configuration?

You tell me! Do you have a use-case?

The primary use case is building additional facilities either on top of the current ones or alongside. Yes. We want to be able to query.

@dabrahams
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes. We want to be able to query.

Can you open an issue? Definitely a separable feature and I'd like to land a v0.9

@fosterbrereton fosterbrereton deleted the simple-configuration branch August 26, 2024 17:19
@dabrahams dabrahams restored the simple-configuration branch August 26, 2024 17:42
@dabrahams
Copy link
Contributor Author

@fosterbrereton Did you really mean to delete this branch and close my PR?

@dabrahams dabrahams force-pushed the simple-configuration branch from 4f6efea to 386bdec Compare August 26, 2024 22:53
@dabrahams dabrahams merged commit 5620a21 into main Aug 26, 2024
15 checks passed
@dabrahams dabrahams deleted the simple-configuration branch August 26, 2024 22:55
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants