From: Kevin S. Van Horn (Kevin.VanHorn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-12 12:26:54
Vladimir Prus writes:
> 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?
Yes, that was my original choice. I changed it to BOOST_DEBUG for two
1. That's the way it was in the existing (undocumented)
2. Experienced C/C++ programmers already know to define NDEBUG for
optimized code, but unless they read the documentation for Boost Assert,
they won't know to define BOOST_NDEBUG. Now consider someone who is just
using one of the Boost libraries, but not Boost Assert. If that library
uses Boost Assert (as it should), it will take a performance hit when
BOOST_NDEBUG is not defined. The user won't know why this is happening,
as he will have had no reason to read the Boost Assert documentation.
I suppose one option would be to have a READ THIS FIRST section in the
documentation, that users should read regardless of which library(ies)
they intend to use.
> 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.
That's what I thought I said. I guess my wording was unclear.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk