From: Dean Sturtevant (deansturtevant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-21 11:07:47
Now that I have some spare time, I'd like to work on putting together
a proposal for a boost debug mode. But only if there's a good chance
that the proposal would be accepted. Here is an outline of some of
the things I'm considering.
1) Versions of functions that do debug checks could either go in a
separate namespace (e.g 'boost_debug') or not. Considering the ODR
discussions we had previously on this matter, I think using a
separate namespace would probably be more acceptable to people.
2) If we used a namespace for debug mode, then we have a choice of
two libraries per current library or just one. I'm leaning towards
two, because that way one can detect unwanted mixing of debug and non-
debug modes (i.e., if one wanted a complete debug build, one would
only link in the debug versions of the libraries. If any non-debug
boost stuff was referenced, this would result in a link error).
3) Clients could register a handler to be notified on error. The
default handling could either be a boost-specific exception being
thrown or asserting.
4) Library writers would be required to put in requirement checks
into their libraries (and of course the people evaluating proposals
would need to verify that reasonable requirement checks are being
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk