From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-03-03 17:07:11
At 06:52 AM 3/3/2002, John Maddock wrote:
>>John's approach is probably better. But there should be a comment
>>explaining why it is being done - if someone just casually glanced at
>>code they might think it was a mistake and remove it.
>On second thought, in most cases couldn't BOOST_TEST be used instead of
>assert - I realise this involves some reworking of old code, but it might
>be worth it in the long run?
Long run, yes.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk