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

From: Reid Sweatman (borderland_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-07-31 10:53:45

Very good point.  I came to the discussion a bit late, although the topic is
near and dear to my flabby black heart, and at first I made the same
assumption.  Then thought about it a bit, and realized that I'd made exactly
the mistake you "postulate" <g>.

Reid Sweatman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Abrahams [mailto:abrahams_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2000 11:28 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] metactrl header [compile time asserts]
>
>
> None of the names I've seen floating around recently address the important
> difference between what we're trying to name and the standard assert(),
> namely that ours happens at compile-time. If you're concerned about what
> unfamiliar readers will be able to understand, consider this possible
> reaction.
> "What's this 'verify()' thing? Oh, wonderful. Another case of 'plain old
> assert isn't good enough for me, I'll write my own'. Stupid boost."