[boost] Re: assert in inline function w/o ODR violation

From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-09-01 11:25:11

> Valentin Bonnard wrote:
> [...]
> To me that's a terrible change. I can't call this
> ``better''. Until something better emerges, I urge
> you to keep the existing code.

As do I.

>    Rather than leave them as they are, should we consider the pruning of
>    the cast operators so that there are no ODR problems at all? I submitted
>    a copy of numeric_cast to Beman at the weekend, and since this is a new
>    operator perhaps we could start with that: a single form that throws an
>    exception.
> 
>    Kevlin

I know we disagree here, so let me make the disagreement stark:

   There are no ODR problems with assert.

It is possible that users can create ODR problems by attempting
to define NDEBUG at too fine a level of granularity.  The safest
way to define NDEBUG is all or nothing, which is, in your opinion,
an imposition.  But it is is not, in my opinion, a good enough
reason to avoid using assert, given its other virtues.