From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-02-14 15:12:42
At 09:58 PM 2/10/00 -0500, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>on 2/10/00 7:52 PM, Beman Dawes at beman_at_[hidden] wrote:
>Just my 2 cents on these, FWIW. I'm tired of discussions that flail
>trying to fulfill an unrealistic set of impossible goals.
>> (R1) Give an error message *at the line* where the assertion
>Highly compiler-dependent! No single implementation is *ever* likely
>satisfy this requirement! Also, some people want readability...
>CodeWarrior's error messages are often so dismal that it can be very
>accomplish anything that looks reasonable in this regard. On the up
>either class or function templates (I forget which) do give an
>backtrace when they fail to compile.
Agreed. That isn't one of my requirements.
>> (R4) No macros.
>What is the reason for this requirement? Just that we don't like
>agree with the sentiment, but let's not be arbitrarily draconian. We
>them for #include guards. We use good old assert(); it works quite
>is always implemented with a macro.
The requirement is more like "No dangerous macros (presumably those
with names that are likely to conflict with user names)."
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk