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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Choose better names for *_assert, *_assert_eq, and *_ensure_eq #61

Closed
brianhuffman opened this issue Aug 11, 2015 · 1 comment
Closed

Choose better names for *_assert, *_assert_eq, and *_ensure_eq #61

brianhuffman opened this issue Aug 11, 2015 · 1 comment
Assignees
@atomb
Labels
breaking A change that will break backward compatibility obsolete Issues that involve/depend on deprecated code, such that they are not worth pursuing type: enhancement Issues describing an improvement to an existing feature or capability

Comments

@brianhuffman
Copy link
Contributor

Seeing names like java_assert_eq and llvm_ensure_eq, it is not obvious which functions are for stating preconditions and which are for postconditions. We should choose better names that make it obvious what they are for.
@atomb atomb self-assigned this Oct 12, 2015
@atomb atomb added the type: enhancement Issues describing an improvement to an existing feature or capability label May 2, 2017
@atomb atomb added this to the 1.0 milestone Oct 3, 2019
@atomb atomb added the breaking A change that will break backward compatibility label Apr 20, 2020
@atomb atomb removed this from the 0.5 milestone Apr 21, 2020
@brianhuffman brianhuffman added the obsolete Issues that involve/depend on deprecated code, such that they are not worth pursuing label Dec 9, 2020
@brianhuffman
Copy link
Contributor Author

These functions are going away soon (and the llvm ones are already gone), so I think we can close this ticket.

brianhuffman pushed a commit that referenced this issue Apr 26, 2021
Merge pull request #61 from GaloisInc/issue59
702dbfc 
Reimplement saw-core `error` with `userError` instead of `panic`.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@atomb atomb

Labels
breaking A change that will break backward compatibility obsolete Issues that involve/depend on deprecated code, such that they are not worth pursuing type: enhancement Issues describing an improvement to an existing feature or capability
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@atomb @brianhuffman