Boost logo

Boost :

From: scleary_at_[hidden]
Date: 2000-12-16 12:22:15

> From: Jesse Jones [mailto:jejones_at_[hidden]]

> <snip>

> It's true that most vendors
> do a poor job of catching precondition violations, but there's no reason
> for boost to go along with this.

If they do a "poor job" of catching precondition violations, what is the
alternate solution? Doing a "poor job" of generating efficient code? At
what point do we draw the line? I think the "Safe STL" provides iterators
that will check the precondition of operator*; should we do the same?

> I strongly support liberal usage of assertions in boost.

assert() itself in many cases cannot be used, due to ODR (one definition
rule) problems. I would be persuaded if we could find an assertion
replacement that:
  1) Has no overhead in release code
  2) Avoids ODR problems

You might want to read the "assert() replacement?" thread long, long, ago on


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