Has someone left a suspend in code somewhere lately Nancy? ;-) You seem to be very adamant about using assert - is there some underlying problem we need to discuss? (I saw you get Sergey the other day).

I personally do not use ASSERT because I don't want to leave the code in there - I use SET STEP ON all the time - because I want to see what is happening and step through it to see where I screwed up. I don't want to leave it in there - I want to fix the problem and then remove all the debugging code.

I think the use of ASSERT is fine in a place where there is a possibility that some outside force may cause a problem - and we want to check for a problem. But when there is an obvious problem, and I need to check it - I want to stop the program and look at what is going on - fix the problem - then remove the SET STEP, etc.

With the introduction of the TRY/CATCH functionality, wouldn't that actually be a better method to handle expected problems?




>SET SOAPBOX ON
>
>>put a SUSPEND or SET STEP ON in yout interactivechange method and see what is happening.
>
>ASSERT. Use ASSERT, not SUSPEND or SET STEP ON.
>
>1. It works.
>2. It gives you a choice of not stopping.
>3. It gives you a chance to have a meaningful message
>4. IT WON'T CAUSE PRODUCTION CODE TO CRASH IF YOU ACCIDENTLY LEAVE IT IN.
>
>SET SOAPBOX OFF
>
>Carry on.