Re: [boost] [assert] static_assert envy

Subject: Re: [boost] [assert] static_assert envy
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-17 12:38:26

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eric Niebler" <eric_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2011 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [assert] static_assert envy

> On 1/17/2011 10:24 PM, Robert Kawulak wrote:
>>> From: Beman Dawes
>>>   BOOST_EXTENDED_ASSERT(true, "This will not assert");
>>>   BOOST_EXTENDED_ASSERT(false, "This will assert");
>> 
>> +1, although I hate the name - it's too long. The use of asserts should be encouraged by making them fast to type and cluttering the
>> code as little as possible. Right now I can't think of any obviously good name, but maybe BOOST_ASSERTM (assert with message)?
> 
> It should be BOOST_ASSERT_MSG, just as MPL has BOOST_MPL_ASSERT_MSG. And
> +1 to Dean's suggestion of std::abort. And also, can we find a better
> option than writing to std::cerr? And lastly, just as with BOOST_ASSERT,
> there should be a way to hook it to install your own failed-assertion
> handler. That is all. :-)

+1
Vicente