Re: [boost] Re: better assertion technique

From: John Torjo (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-23 16:25:18

> > >
> > > The output of the above (in case the assertion fails) can look like:
> > >
> > > Assertion failed:
> > > '(v_(i) < v_(j)) || (i < 0) || (v_(k) == -1)'
> > > i= '3'
> > > j= '2'
> > > k= '1'
> > >
> > This feature looks handy. Short macro like "v_" is IMHO acceptable, it
> won't
> > clash with definition like:
> >   int v_;
> 
> but it will clash with 'int v_(1);', right.
> 

Yes, well, we can change its name ;-)
Basically, I guess you could say the same about _1, _2 etc. of lambda.
(they would sure clash with something.
We can even change v_ to _v.

Please suggest a better name if you like.

Best,
John