From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-20 21:56:41
David Abrahams wrote:
> Yesterday someone on the user's list posted a message
> (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/36884) about a
> "compilation error in the boost code:"
> s-test.h:49: instantiated from here
> /usr/include/boost/archive/detail/oserializer.hpp:567: error: invalid
> application of 'sizeof' to incomplete
> type 'boost::STATIC_ASSERTION_FAILURE<false>'
> make: *** [stest] Error 1
> and proceeded to try to analyze the BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT implementation
> to see what was wrong with it. Granted, most people figure out what a
> static assertion is supposed to be, but still, the error message gave no
> clue about what might have gone wrong... no clue to the user, and no
> clue to anyone reading his posting, unless they were going to look up
> the line in the source file... oops, I take it back. My copy of
> oserializer.hpp doesn't even have a line 567, and the posting doesn't
> indicate which version the user has.
> For several releases now we've had a suite of static assertion tools
> that give far superior error messages to what BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT can
> I think <radical-idea>it's time to deprecate
> BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT</radical-idea> or at *least* put a prominent note in
> its documentation directing people at the BOOST_MPL_ASSERT macros.
If BOOST_MPL_ASSERT does a better job, why not just change
BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT to be implemented in terms of BOOST_MPL_ASSERT?
Also, C++0x static_assert is becoming available in more compilers;
should all of the Boost compile-time asserts use C++0x static_assert if
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk