Re: [boost] Building boost.

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 
the
 >>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.

--Beman