From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-26 10:03:35
John Maddock wrote:
>> A good solution would be to factor out the MPL ASSERTS
>> code and documentation into a separate library
>> (boost/utility/static_assert?). I don't know if the MPL_ASSERTS
>> work with compile time constants or just with types. If its
>> the latter, then BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT would
>> be in that same page. Since this would mostly be moving
>> around a bunch of stuff that is already done, I would hope
>> that its not a huge amount of work. Of course that would
>> be my perception as I wouldn't be the one doing it. Oh,
>> and while we're at it, may we can include BOOST_STATIC_WARNING
>> in here as well?
> That would be my preferance as well.
> Any takers?
Seems to me that if we were to go that way, *and* if people are
generally agreed that the existing facilities use too many MPL headers
(I am not yet convinced of that, BTW) Aleksey would at least need to be
involved. AFAIK he's the only one who really understands the structure
-- 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