Subject: Re: [boost] [assert] static_assert envy
From: Jeff Flinn (TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-18 09:21:55
Beman Dawes wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Thorsten Ottosen <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> I'm fine with BOOST_ASSERT_MSG(). Since we are adding assert.hpp I would
>> like to see
>> as well. It is really much clearer to read and maintain than
>> BOOST_ASSERT( !foo() || condition );
> I like it!
> I'm working on a Boost quality implementation now. Stay tuned.
Should there be BOOST_VERIFY variants also?
Thanks for addressing this Beman.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk