Re: [boost] compile time asserts [preconditions]

From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-07-31 14:12:36

John Maddock wrote:

 >  ...
 >
 >Anyway its all in the vault under "precondition".

Not to take away from the naming discussion, I would like to focus on the 
submission itself.

Nits:

*  While there isn't a law that requires it, lots of people expect all C++ 
source files to begin with a comment line which simply says what's in the 
file.

*  I like a "Revision History" comments.  True, CVS supplies history, but 
for casual reading a simple Revision History helps.  Or is that just 
personal taste on my part?  I don't think we ever discussed it.

*  How about adding a disclaimer in the docs to the effect: "Boost members 
spent considerable effort trying to invent a compile time assert that 
avoided macros, all to no avail.  The general conclusion was that the good 
of a compile time assert working at namespace, function, and class scope 
outweighed the ugliness of a macro."  Maybe add at the bottom so it doesn't 
take away from the central description.

*  I had reading comprehension trouble with this sentence:

To avoid this, if you use BOOST_PRECONDITION in a header at namespace 
scope, then ensure that the declarations are enclosed in their own unique 
namespace.

Possibly clearer:

To avoid this, if you use BOOST_PRECONDITION in a header at namespace 
scope, enclose the use in a (possibly nested) namespace unique to that 
header.

Basically, I think we ought to settle the name issue, formally review this, 
and start using it.

--Beman