Boost logo

Boost :

From: Jeremy Siek (jsiek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-15 11:28:44

Why not assert()? I don't know... its so... old school ;) And
std::range_error is just itching to get used.

Just for fun, here's an alternate definition that's more useful when
debuging (at least in gdb). Stops execution (via a seg fault) and lets you
see the current environment, stack, etc.

#define BOOST_ASSERT_RANGE(expr) \
  do if (!expr) { \
    int* x = 0; \
    *x = 0; \
  } while (0)

On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, DEAN STURTEVANT wrote:

dean> --- In boost_at_[hidden], Jeremy Siek <jsiek_at_l...> wrote:
dean> > Should we have a boost macro for adding in this kind of assertion?
dean> >
dean> > #define BOOST_ASSERT_RANGE(expr) \
dean> > if (expr) \
dean> > throw std::range_error( \
dean> > __FILE__ + std::string(":") \
dean> > + boost::lexical_cast<std::string>(__LINE__) + \
dean> > std::string(": range error") )
dean> >
dean> Well, ignoring the fact that the test should be on !(expr) rather
dean> than expr and that the construction is syntactically incorrect (You
dean> can't go "string" + std::string("str")), I was thinking of something
dean> more lightweight. What is wrong with assert()?

 Jeremy Siek www:
 Ph.D. Candidate email: jsiek_at_[hidden]
 Univ. of Notre Dame work phone: (219) 631-3906

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at