[boost] Re: A better assert() This is it!!!

From: Dan W. (danw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-05 07:46:07

Bronek Kozicki wrote:
> there is another problem. I could have somewhere:
> 
> class A {
> // ...
>   void verify(bool);
> };
> 
> ... and macro named "verify" will completly destroy my project. I
> suggest 2 solutions:
> - give it different name (uppercase ONE !)

Ya, I just did, see my other post, tentatively "ENSURE()".
( Hope MS hasn't snatched it too... >:~0  )

> - #undef assert and make it just better "assert" macro

Frankly, I don't even like the name... "assert", in English, means to 
"proclaim" or something like that, not to "verify" or "ensure" something.

> Anyway I remember that John Torjo already posted similar library (named
> smart_assert) to boost.

I don't mean this as a criticism of smart_assert (more of a 
self-criticism):  I'm lazy, and I got exhausted and lost trying to learn 
how to use it, and all those chains of parenthesisized statements give 
me shivers.  I just want something simple and lightweight for myself.
And for logging errors to a file, I'd rather have some LOGERR().
But that's just me.

Cheers!