From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-22 21:00:43
Beman Dawes wrote:
> If BOOST_MPL_ASSERT does a better job, why not just change
> BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT to be implemented in terms of BOOST_MPL_ASSERT?
1. There's more than one MPL assertion macro; one should choose the
right one in order to get the best results.
2. you need to do a little bit more than write a simple integral
constant expression to get really useful error output from the MPL
> 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
Without knowing anything about how good the error messages are that one
gets from static_assert, I'd say "probably."
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk