[boost] Re: Proposed Boost config macro

From: Samuel Krempp (krempp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-09 09:32:13

le Samedi 7 Décembre 2002 23:24, dave_at_[hidden] écrivit :
>> What about having
>>
>>   BOOST_UNREACHABLE_RETURN(0)
>> or
>>   BOOST_UNREACHABLE_RETURN("")
> 
> I like it!
> 
>> I think we need to "return" values for types other than int.
> 
> Of course. My suggestion would have just been used thus:
> 
>     #ifdef BOOST_NO_NON_RETURN_PATH_COMPREHENSION
>            return whatever;
>     #endif
> 
> But I like yours better.

the name is nicer, but the usage can be less self-documenting than the 
ifdefed return. 
for someone who doesn't know the macro, he cant be 100% sure what 
preprocessing magic BOOST_UNREACHABLE_RETURN(0) will do, and so might need 
to go find that macro's definition
(and when dozens of macro are designed and used like that, it gets painful 
for a new user to read the code)

On the opposite hand, using the same kind of naming scheme,
#ifdef BOOST_NEED_UNREACHABLE_RETURN
     return whatever;
#endif

the purpose is 100% self-evident, and the random reader gets it instantly 
(whatever the name of the macro)

it looks like the macro has now already been introduced, but I liked the 
plain ifdefed return better..

Anyway, that's just my opinion on this rather esthetical matter, for what 
it's worth.

my-0.02¤-ly y'rs,
-- 
Samuel