Re: [boost] Deprecate BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT?

From: Darren Garvey (darren.garvey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-24 10:00:48

2008/6/23 David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>:

> Andrey Semashev wrote:
> > David Abrahams wrote:
> >> Andrey Semashev wrote:
> >>
> >> ...snip...
> >> 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
> >
> > True, at least they don't want to.
> >
> >> 2. users can't even locate the line where the error occurred in a long
> >> instantiation backtrace
> >
> > BOOST_MPL_ASSERT does no better here.
>
> It makes one part of the message stand out better than the others.  You
> don't think ****************** error-message:: ********************* is
> more likely to get noticed and pasted into a problem report?
>

I agree, plus BOOST_MPL_ASSERT_MSG() does an even better job of being
obvious what's gone wrong: on my computer, MSVC it adds a *full* screen of
errors, with the supplied error message (such as
THE_NUMBER_SUPPLIED_WAS_OUT_OF_RANGE) stuck right in the middle of it,
dumped in between loads of asterisks. Because the surrounding errors are
pretty consistent (AFAICT) it makes them recognisable and easier to spot.

It's a pity the mpl macros are so hard to find though. It'd be nice if they
were documented directly in the static assert docs.

-- 
Darren