From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-11 11:33:06
Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
> It's been six days since I posted this, without a single response, so I'm
> going to try again. Based on earlier discussions, I thought there might
> be some interest in this. Does anyone have any problems with the proposed
Yes, althought a very minor ones.
1. I'd prefer to have BOOST_NDEBUG instead of BOOST_DEBUG, for
consistency with NDEBUG. I simply want BOOST_ASSERT to work for
debug builds. Or doesBOOST_DEBUG have non-empty initial value?
2. failed_exception can be safely derived from std::exception. Unlike
std::logic_error, it does not use std::string.
3. Docs for BOOST_ASSERT say
'Otherwise, if user has already provided a definition for BOOST_ASSERT,
the definition is left unchanged.
Is this accurate? If user has provided its own definition for BOOST_ASSERT,
then calling the BOOST_ASSERT macro will do what user coded. You must
mean that if there's BOOST_ASSERT defined then <boost/assert.hpp> won't
change that definition.
4. I seem to see the point in separate BOOST_ASSERT and BOOST_ASSERT_MSG, but
would like some better documentation on this.
So, the summary is that you code looks very usefull and I'm going to use it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk