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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk