Perfect proposal, Daniel. A suggestion:
IMP_logic_check() IMP_usage_check()
If the logic is correct, all errors should come from usage, right ? Also I suggest that the messages start with the name of the function failing, like:
"MyFunction: I am failing here .... "
2009/10/9 Daniel Russel drussel@gmail.com
> > On Oct 9, 2009, at 4:20 PM, Ben Webb wrote: > > On 10/09/2009 03:58 PM, Daniel Russel wrote: >> >>> To address this, I propose: >>> - provide IMP_implementation_check and IMP_usage_check macros >>> - provide a methods to turn on and off the two different types of checks >>> independently >>> - remove the concept of check levels >>> >> >> Sounds reasonable to me. The only problem I have with it is that >> IMP_implementation_check is kind of long to type, and easy to misspell (as >> you in fact have already demonstrated later in your email!) >> > Agreed, anything shorter to suggest that gets the point across? Not that > short would prevent me from misspelling it. > > "internal" probably would do. > > _______________________________________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev >