[boost] Re: Meta programming 'debug' mode.

From: Dirk Gerrits (dirk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-11 15:55:14

Gennaro Prota wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:46:17 +0100, Dirk Gerrits
> <dirk_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>Perhaps I missed a part of the discussion, but what is wrong with Jaap's 
>>suggestion:
>>
>>#ifdef BOOST_STATIC_NDEBUG
>>    #define BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT( B ) BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT_IMPL( true )
>>#else
>>    #define BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT( B ) BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT_IMPL( B )
>>#endif
>>
>>?
> 
> 
> Well, considering that what we want is just a no-op, which do you
> prefer?
> 
> a)  typedef ::boost::static_assert_test<
>       sizeof(::boost::STATIC_ASSERTION_FAILURE< (bool)( true ) >)>
>         BOOST_JOIN(boost_static_assert_typedef_, __LINE__);
> 
> (I've just picked up one of the implementations in static_assert.hpp,
> but the others don't differ too much.)
> 
> 
> b)  typedef void boost_static_assert_typedef;

The effect is the same.

However, (a) or BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT_IMPL( true ) avoids all of the 
(potential?) problems you are worrying about. So why do you prefer (b)?

Regards,

Dirk Gerrits