Re: [boost] metactrl header [compile time asserts]

From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-07-28 10:05:54

Nathan Myers wrote:

 >To choose a name, we should consider how it will be perceived by
 >people trying to read unfamiliar code.  Maybe they just encountered
 >"boost::" and haven't memorized everything in it yet.  How can we
 >help them?

Good point. Exactly.

 >
 >Something that implies a "fait accompli" would be better, implying a
 >static condition rather than an action to perform.  Then, we can
 >consider "checked" "proven", "verified", "known", "required".  However,
 >grammatical correctness is why "assert" works so well, and none of
 >these last satisfy it.

Action sounds better to me.  How about "verify"?

 >A side issue... it appears to me that the proposed expression would
 >not be appropriate for use in header files.  Am I right?

Sorry to be dense.  I'm not seeing the issue.  Could you explain?

--Beman