Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-06-10 23:02:49

----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Hinnant" <hinnant_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Trouble accessing

> I can get to boost with
> Call me paranoid (and ignorant) but I'm wondering if there may be a virus
> on the loose that's attacking DNS's.

I don't know, but for the past 2 days I've been getting a message like this
one every time I post to boost:

User's "psynapse" mailbox is full

All messages will be returned until some space is freed up.

From sentto-1234907-729-960694313-psynapse=sub-mail.com_at_[hidden]
Sun Jun 11 05:43:27 2000
Received: from ( [])
by (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id FAA06102
for <psynapse_at_[hidden]>; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 05:43:26 -0500
Received: from [] by with NNFMP; 11 Jun 2000
03:31:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 13038 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2000 03:31:52 -0000
Received: from unknown ( by with QMQP; 11 Jun 2000
03:31:52 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by mta2
with SMTP; 11 Jun 2000 03:31:51 -0000
Received: from dabrahams2 ( [])
by (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id XAA21109 for
<boost_at_[hidden]>; Sat, 10 Jun 2000 23:31:50 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <017601bfd355$71d48fe0$056ca8c0_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0006091311040.3986-100000_at_localhost.localdomain>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
From: "David Abrahams" <abrahams_at_[hidden]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list boost_at_[hidden]; contact boost-owner_at_[hidden]
Delivered-To: mailing list boost_at_[hidden]
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 23:30:52 -0400
Reply-To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: Re: [boost] Safety over efficiency guideline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

The counterargument to this is that programmers should never feel a nagging
doubt about adding an assertion, for fear that it will slow down the
shipping code.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Branko Èibej" <branko.cibej_at_[hidden]>

And a good example of how things _shouldn't_ be done is the Microsoft
practice of not providing support for assert() in the optimized version
of their runtime library. Which means I can't use the faster library
and still keep assert()s in my code, although in my opinion an abort()
is always better than a segfault (or worse). Which in turn means that I
have to implement my own assertion macro; then what's the point of having
a standard interface?

Free @Backup service! Click here for your free trial of @Backup.
@Backup is the most convenient way to securely protect and access
your files online. Try it now and receive 300 MyPoints.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at