Re: [boost] [assert] Proposed patch

From: Gennaro Prota (gennaro_prota_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-05 10:32:24

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 15:26:41 +0100, "Reece Dunn" <msclrhd_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

>Gennaro Prota wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 15:12:43 +0200, Gennaro Prota
>> <gennaro_prota_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> 
>> > [something...]
>> 
>> I always wonder how a lack of answers should be taken: (a) nobody
>> disagrees (b) nobody agrees (c) nobody cares.
>
>How about:
>(d) they are busy, so haven't had chance to look at it yet;
>(e) they haven't noticed it because, since last they checked, there
>they had 50+ new e-mail from Boost only!

That could be :) (you might mitigate that problem if using the NNTP
interface, perhaps)

>
>> Hint: (c) is impossible, as *I* care, and for that reason I'll take
>> (a) by default ;)
>
>As for the original question, I would personally prefer:
>
>c) # define BOOST_ASSERT(expr) assert("BOOST_LIBRARIES:" && (expr))
>
>but with "BOOST_LIBRARIES:" something more meaningful/readible, like
>"Boost assertion failure: ".

I used all-uppercase just to make the message stand out more.
"Assertion failure" will likely appear anyway (though the exact
message is implementation dependent) so I just added some text to
specify the "source" of the assertion.

--
[ Gennaro Prota, C++ developer for hire ]
[    resume:  available on request      ]