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: Ábel Sinkovics (abel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-09-16 01:24:14

> Why not use the function-type-trick with double parentheses employed by
> BOOST_MPL_ASSERT and avoid the need to write a separate typedef?

Because when there is a syntax error, the compiler can point me to the
location of the error in the typedef. When I define the body of the
predicate in a macro call, the compiler points me to the macro call,
thus the error is more difficult to locate.

Regards,
  Abel