From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-19 13:28:20
From: "Greg Colvin" <gcolvin_at_[hidden]>
> > My point is that a plain assert is fine for #1, but may or may not be
> > best choice for #3.
> Aha. We are in violent agreement then, and discussion comes down
> to what is the appropriate mechanism? I still think plain assert
> may be fine, especially if testing and review are supposed to have
> caught whatever problems exist.
The problem is that when you design the library you don't know whether plain
assert would be fine or not. For example, a "classic" GUI application like
MS Word may decide to report the error via a dialog box with an option to
save the current document. A compiler will report the error via its error
reporting mechanism, with a source file and line number prepended. A web
server will write to a log file (it might not even have a console.)
> A more configurable mechanism would
> also be fine, but I would like to see any such mechanism boostified
> too, rather than provided ad hoc for just the thread library.
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk