Re: [boost] Reminder: Static Asserts formal review

From: John Maddock (John_Maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-16 07:06:19

Thanks for all the feedback on static asserts, all of it is fair comment,
some more detailed points below:

>- 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

I thought it was required, but I'll look into it.

>*  static_assert_test.cpp, static_assert_example_1.cpp, etc, assume 
>sizeof(int)==4 in several places, and sizeof(int)>=4 in others.  Neither
is 
>correct; sizeof(int)==2 is not unheard of, for example.

Point taken, difficult to come up with global scope tests that aren't
meaningless: remember that tests at global scope are intended to test for
platform specific features: you are correct that they should succeed
though.

>*  static_assert_example_1.cpp uses WCHAR_MIN, which apparently isn't 
>defined in any Borland headers.

I guess I could try and think of something else (ideas?) WCHAR_MIN is
required by the standard though - so maybe a Borland specific fix is in
order.

Other mis-compiles: thanks for picking these up, I'll look into it.

- John.