Subject: bug#13007: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt

From: Eli Zaretskii <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 21:50:11 +0200

> From: "Drew Adams" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:13:33 -0800
> 
> > > If we have already seen more than one way, as you say, that 
> > > seems like a good hint that the assertion itself might be
> > > flawed: the wrong assertion.  It suggests to me that the
> > > assertion does not understand what it should be
> > > expecting, and it has too narrow a view of things.
> > 
> > Yes, that part is clear, and therefore the assertion was removed from
> > the trunk.  But we are trying to figure out with what to replace it,
> > and for that, we need as many use-cases that violate it as possible.
> 
> In that case, you are in effect stating that the addition of such a (proper)
> assertion is just a nice-to-have, not something needed.

Assertions are always "nice to have".  They are a means of catching
bugs that violate assumptions of the code before that code causes harm
or crashes in a place where the original reason is lost.  If you think
this is not needed, then we will have to disagree.  There are hundreds
of assertions in the Emacs code (grep for "eassert").

> I would suggest, in that case, that we/you move on to other things...

I'm sorry to hear that you won't help.