Re: [boost] Reminder: Static Asserts formal review

From: Mark Rodgers (mark.rodgers_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-15 04:00:59

Yes, I think static asserts should be accepted into Boost.  Some
minor comments:

Documentation

- Instead of COMPILE_TIME_ASSERTION_FAILURE<0> it should perhaps be 
  COMPILE_TIME_ASSERTION_FAILURE<false>.  This is what GCC produces,
  and the parameter is a bool after all.

- Throughout Example 2 you have RandonAccessIterator.  At least you
  are consistent, but perhaps s/n/m/ might be in order.

- The reason for the extra parentheses in Example 2 could rate a 
  mention.

static_assert.hpp

- I think it would be clearer to move BOOST_JOIN to above BOOST_DO_JOIN:

   #define BOOST_JOIN( X, Y ) BOOST_DO_JOIN( X, Y )
   #define BOOST_DO_JOIN( X, Y ) BOOST_DO_JOIN2(X,Y)
   #define BOOST_DO_JOIN2(X, Y) X##Y

- Is BOOST_DO_JOIN2 necessary?  The following seems to work for me:

   #define BOOST_JOIN( X, Y ) BOOST_DO_JOIN( X, Y )
   #define BOOST_DO_JOIN( X, Y ) X ## Y

- The lines for the various versions of the BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT macros
  are too long.  I'd prefer to see something more like

    #define BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT( B ) \
       typedef \
          ::boost::ct_assert_test< \
             sizeof(::boost::COMPILE_TIME_ASSERTION_FAILURE< ( B ) >) \
          > \
          BOOST_JOIN(boost_static_assert_typedef_, __LINE__)

- The names should be consistent.  If we have BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT, then
  I think it should be STATIC_ASSERTION_FAILURE and static_assert_test.
  (BTW, I like these names.)

Examples

- Need copyright notices.

- Example 2 is obviously the source for the docs, so shares the
  RandonAccessIterator typo.

Mark