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

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-19 18:57:57

At 05:59 PM 3/19/2001, williamkempf_at_[hidden] wrote:

 >...  I do think that a configurable
 >assertion would be appropriate for Boost libraries in general, but I
 >don't want to tackle this idea specifically for Boost.Threads.

That is the best plan.

While a configurable assert sounds intriguing, it may turn out to be much 
further off that one might think.  Lots of good programmers have tried to 
come up with a better assert, only to have their creations fall by the 
wayside.

That isn't to say others shouldn't keep trying, but until they succeed just 
stick with assert() or throwing an exception, using the guidelines from 
Dave Abrahams and others as to when to do which.

--Beman

PS: If someone does come up with a configurable assert(), it probably 
should avoid a name that includes "assert" or "ASSERT".  People will just 
assume it is yet another assert() replacement and make all sorts of 
incorrect assumptions about it.