Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [proto] _value doesn't enforce zero arity
From: Dave Jenkins (david_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-08 15:52:27

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> on Tue Apr 07 2009, "troy d. straszheim" <> wrote:
>> Gevorg Voskanyan wrote:
>>> How about a macro BOOST_PROTO_EXTRA_CHECKING or something like that to
>>> have those
>> kind of checks conditionally?
>> I could see a BOOST_MPL_DISABLE_ASSERTS token, behavior analogous to
> It's a very good idea, IMO. Open a ticket?

This flag sounds the same as the BOOST_COMPILE_TIME_DEBUG flag proposed by
Niebler here:
Joel de Guzman suggested making it an integer (0 == no CT debug, 1..3 CT
debug levels) here:

My thought is to have one of the integer debug levels enable compile-time
tracing of
"interesting" template instantiations using Steven Watanabe's
For this to work, the library author would have to mark the "interesting"
template classes and functions with "PROFILE_TRACER()" and bypass
Steven's preprocessing stage. Is this workable and/or a good idea?

Dave Jenkins

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