Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-22 21:08:23

Andrey Semashev wrote:

> As a user and a library writer I would ask to keep BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT
> as it is without deprecation. I'm using this macro on a regular basis
> and found no problems with it. I usually put a comment near the macro
> that explains what the check does and I'm very sure the comment will be
> far more informative than any compiler-generated error message (unless
> we are speaking of static_assert in C++0x).

Oh, I agree. Probably even if we _are_ speaking of static_assert in
C++0x. The problem of course is that (generalizing wildly here):

1. users don't look at the code

2. users can't even locate the line where the error occurred in a long
instantiation backtrace

3. the part of the backtrace they paste into their problem reports
doesn't contain the information you need to know what went wrong.

The point is that BOOST_MPL_ASSERT does a better job of highlighting the
actual problem.

> I wouldn't like to move to BOOST_MPL_ASSERT since (a) it would require
> to change my code (b) it would complicate condition expressions with
> compile-time constants

How do you manage to use BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT without compile-time constants?

> and (c) it would introduce dependency on MPL
> where there was no such dependency.

That can be dealt with, if necessary, by factoring out that part of the

Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at