Re: boost/assert.hpp redux

From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-05 12:29:45

--- In boost_at_y..., Darin Adler <darin_at_b...> wrote:
> On 2/5/02 8:17 AM, "Alisdair Meredith" <alisdair.meredith_at_u...>
> wrote:
> 
> > Shouldn't that be
> > 
> > #include <cassert>
> > 
> > or have I been picking up odd habits again?
> 
> For most C headers, it's necessary to use the C++ version, <cxxx>, 
because
> then you don't get identifiers intruding on the global namespace; 
they stay
> in namespace std.
> 
> But <assert.h> defines only a macro, so there's no difference 
between
> <cassert> and <assert.h> except that some platforms lack an 
<assert.h>.

Do you mean lack <cassert>.  Otherwise the following makes no sense.

> That's why Peter (and then I) used <assert.h>.

<assert.h> is deprecated, so I'd think we'd want to use <cassert> 
when possible (i.e. we may need a macro to indicate that some 
platform doesn't include a <cassert> and should instead include 
<assert.h>).  I realize that this seems picky since they are 
basically equivalent, but I don't think Boost should use the 
deprecated C headers.

Bill Kempf