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
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk