Sylvain Pion 1df108c0d7 Replace some CGAL_assertion(A && B) by CGAL_assertion(A & B). ... In general this is safe: B would not be evaluated only if A would be false, that is, when the assertion would be raised anyway. So what worse can happen in evaluating B than an assertion failure. Not much I guess. And for Uncertain<> conditions, it is preferable to use & instead of &&. So I change some of these to see if it might become a global rule.		2008-08-12 14:59:20 +00:00
..
doc_tex	Replace CGAL::Interval_nt<>::number_of_failures() by a CGAL_PROFILER() counter.	2008-08-06 13:16:04 +00:00
include/CGAL	Replace some CGAL_assertion(A && B) by CGAL_assertion(A & B).	2008-08-12 14:59:20 +00:00
package_info/Number_types	Remove changes.txt files.	2008-07-24 17:47:16 +00:00
src/CGAL	Replace some CGAL_assertion(A && B) by CGAL_assertion(A & B).	2008-08-12 14:59:20 +00:00
test/Number_types	changed name: CGAL::Modular -> CGAL::Residue	2008-08-04 15:09:13 +00:00
KNOWN_PROBLEMS_WITH_FLOATING_POINT	Remove buggy comment :-)	2008-02-04 21:50:51 +00:00
dont_submit	…