From: Matthew Herrmann (matthew.herrmann_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-09-06 18:49:11
> Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:51:05 +0200
> From: Mateusz Loskot <mateusz_at_[hidden]>
> Subject: Re: [boost] boost::static_assert name rationale ?
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Message-ID: <44FED249.2050506_at_[hidden]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Philippe Vaucher wrote:
>> I have a rather silly question, but why is boost::static_assert named
>> static_assert and not compile_assert ?
>> It's probably a lack of understanding of the static concept on my side but I
>> can't find what's static in a compile-time assertion :)
> According to my understanding, 'static' term is used to name
> compile-time operations, mostly in meta programming.
> It's similar distinction as between
> dynamic polymorphism (run-time, through virtual functions)
> static polymorphism (compile-time, implemented with templates).
I think the wording was modeled on static_cast<...> vs dynamic_cast<...>
in the standard library.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk