On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 6:06 PM Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
Again, then move the macro into Core or Config
If we are to move the macro instead of adding a new one, then maybe the beginning of a release cycle is not the best time for it.
BTW, I don't find adding a small dependency such as StaticAssert as a problem, assuming I really need it and C++11 static_assert is somehow not acceptable.
If that works for you, by all means keep doing it. Yet a common complaint is that Boost libraries each have too many dependencies. This was known 6 years ago and hasn't change (and probably has gotten worse): https://www.reddit.com/r/cpp/comments/gfowpq/why_you_dont_use_boost/
But I actually have a hard time seeing how C++11 static_assert wouldn't cut it to such a degree that I would go an extra mile to define my own macro.
DIfferent people see things differently. I for example, prefer the 1-argument static_assert because of two reasons * It is consistent (no variation in the emitted diagnostic) * I don't have to think about what string I want to put Thanks