Re: [boost] "static asserts"?

From: Kevlin Henney (kevlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-07 14:05:43

In message <200011060636_MC2-B9C6-C18B_at_[hidden]>, John Maddock
<John_Maddock_at_[hidden]> writes
>>I would argue that "compile-time assert" is MUCH less confusing.
>
>I personally don't care what it's called, except that last time this was
>discussed "static assert" seemed to win out (after a very long argument). 
>Maybe its time to invoke egroups poll facilities?

Might be an idea.

Another thought might be to use the same naming convention that the
template meta-programming library intends to use -- IIRC, that was a
stand off between meta, compile-time and Connecticut.

Kevlin
____________________________________________________________

  Kevlin Henney                   phone:  [phone]
  Curbralan Limited               mobile: [phone]
  mailto:kevlin_at_[hidden]     fax:    [phone]
  http://www.curbralan.com
____________________________________________________________