[boost] Re: A better assert()

From: Dan W. (danw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-04 11:16:51

Beman Dawes wrote:
> How is what you are proposing different from BOOST_ASSERT?
> 
> See http://www.boost.org/libs/utility/assert.html

Semantically the same;  I just prefer something more code-size-wise 
ligtweight (without ENCLOSING_FUNCTION, FILE, LINE) because I'm trying 
to come up with a 'simplest possible' Design by Contract lib a la Eiffel 
for C++.  If this were to succeed, in my mind, DBC would become a way of 
life and every function would start with one or more require clauses and 
end with one or more assure clauses, so I wouldn't want all those extra 
features to be instantiated each time. Also, DBC probably would not need 
any handler other than one which stops execution with a DebugBreak() or 
similar thing. Finally, I'd like to shorten the name and minimize 
keyboard hits required to type a DBC clause.

dan