From: Brian Ravnsgaard Riis (brian_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-23 04:26:41
David Abrahams wrote:
> John Maddock wrote:
>> The other issue is with MPL's messages: sorry Dave, but the first time I
>> an MPL assertion failure, my immediate reaction was "what the heck is
> Don't you think everyone reacts the same way the first time they trigger
> a BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT?
I know I did, that's for sure.
Anyway, Robert Ramey mentioned that Boost.MPL is not the obvious place
for anyone to go browsing for a "better BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT". Heck, I
didn't realize there was anything like that in there (though, in
retrospect, I probably should have guessed).
Possibly that part should be factored out, as you mentioned, and
BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT implemented in terms of it, as a convenience macro?
Of course, regardless, the whole shebang should probably use c++0x
static_assert if available, but I've not yet seen the error messages
produced by any of the compilers that already support it, so I'm in no
position to judge really.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk