From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-11-12 13:20:43
From: "Darin Adler" <darin_at_[hidden]>
> on 11/12/01 9:57 AM, Peter Dimov at pdimov_at_[hidden] wrote:
> > Compatibility? Currently Boost is in "release mode" by default (because
> > doesn't have a debug mode.) The rationale is (AFAIK) possible ODR
> Boost currently has some assertions in it now that use assert(). And those
> are not in "release mode" by default. You haven't convinced me yet that
> there's a need to deviate from the C standard's approach.
The use of 'assert' in boost libraries is not widespread. In particular, the
smart pointers and boost::array don't assert. I'd like to see them changed
to use BOOST_ASSERT where appropriate.
When BOOST_ASSERT is off by default, this will not introduce
incompatibilities (of any kind) so approving such a change would be a
When BOOST_ASSERT is on by default, boost library authors might be more
reluctant to use it, a situation that doesn't help anyone since this means
"always off", not "off by default."
> > How, and where, should we include the function name? Do you mean as a
> > parameter to boost_error?
Assuming that we can test for this feature, what is the benefit? IOW what is
the use case where having the function name passed to boost_error help?
-- 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