[boost] Re: assert() replacement?

From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-08-31 15:07:34

Valentin Bonnard wrote:

>Beman Dawes wrote:
>
>> The real question is whether to stick with assert() or try to
develop
>> something along the lines of assertion<>().  It seems to me that
>> assertion<>() meets identified needs:
>> 
>>    * Code usually optimized away if not active.
>
>Need a compile time constant to do that.
>
>>    * Avoids ODR violations.

*@#$%! assertion<>() does violate the ODR.  I was misreading 3.2
[basic.def.odr] paragraph 5. Argh...

>...
>>    * Avoids possibly harmful macro usage.
>> 
>> Needs identified so far that assertion<>() doesn't meet :
>> 
>>    * Reporting of file and line.
>
>These are contradicting. We must choose.

Well, it is possible to pass __LINE__ and __FILE__ as arguments, but
you are right in that people probably wouldn't like to do that extra
coding.

>
>>    * Parameterization of exception type.
>
>If it's only used for debugguing, it is worth the 
>complexity ?

I don't personally know, but included it because Bjarne says it is
useful.

--Beman