Re: [boost] Is there interest in unit testing both passing and failing BOOST_MPL_ASSERTs?

Subject: Re: [boost] Is there interest in unit testing both passing and failing BOOST_MPL_ASSERTs?
From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-15 18:46:12

Gordon Woodhull <gordon <at> woodhull.com> writes:

> 
> On Sep 15, 2011, at 6:19 PM, Gennadiy Rozental <rogeeff <at> gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Gordon Woodhull <gordon <at> woodhull.com> writes:
> >> It also sounds like it's for more than just testing.
> > 
> > What else can you use this for?
> 
> That's what I'd use it for, but Ben is talking about assertions that double as
tests, so they'd go into the
> code proper and have different behavior in test mode.

This is bad idea in general compile you unit test with different options than
your regular build and bad idea generate different code in this case as well.
Also what these statements do in regular build? Server as static asserts?

Gennadiy