Re: [boost] static_assert: conforming compiler preference

From: John Maddock (John_Maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-16 07:07:13

>It would be worth documenting that even given conforming compilers, using
>the namespace reduces the likelihood of warnings when porting the code.
>Also, it should be clear that the separate namespace only provides value
>when used in a header.  IMHO, example 1 should start out by specifying the
>bottom line recommended usage: namespace (not global) scope for headers
and
>namespace (including global) scope for non-headers.

Yep.

>There is one other suggestion I have thought of regarding the
documentation:
>Turn the examples headings into use pattern headings.  Currently, there is
>no normative definition of how static assert may be used.  Can it be used
in
>an enum, for example?  By looking at the code and thinking, you can
realize
>that no, it cannot.  It would be nice if the documentation lent itself to
>quickly answering these types of questions by providing a comprehensive
>listing of how static assert can be used.  Really, it already does this;
>reclassifying the examples as defined usages would make this clear.

Yep.

- John.