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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk