From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-17 11:20:28
At 08:40 AM 11/17/2000 -0500, scleary_at_[hidden] wrote:
>Now that the Formal Review is over, we may want to take up any naming
>discussions; I will leave this up to John Maddock.
As far as eventual standardization goes, any name we choose is probably
just a placeholder. Thus BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT is fine with me.
The reason I think the name is just a placeholder is that I think the final
solution requires compiler and/or language support. The C committee has
started to use reserved names for this sort of thing. So what C++ may end
up with is something like:
__static_assert( ... )
But that isn't something we can really deal with today, so let's just stick
with BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT or similar and move on.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk