Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads draft library submission

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
the
> > 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.

Agreed.

--
Peter Dimov
Multi Media Ltd.