Re: [boost] Static Assert Formal Review results

From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-11-17 11:20:28

At 08:40 AM 11/17/2000 -0500, scleary_at_[hidden] wrote:

 >Now that the Formal Review is over, we may want to take up any naming
 >discussions; I will leave this up to John Maddock.

As far as eventual standardization goes, any name we choose is probably 
just a placeholder.  Thus BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT is fine with me.

The reason I think the name is just a placeholder is that I think the final 
solution requires compiler and/or language support.  The C committee has 
started to use reserved names for this sort of thing.  So what C++ may end 
up with is something like:

          __static_assert( ... )

But that isn't something we can really deal with today, so let's just stick 
with BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT or similar and move on.

--Beman