Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
It's been six days since I posted this, without a single response, so I'm
going to try again. Based on earlier discussions, I thought there might
be some interest in this. Does anyone have any problems with the proposed
interface?
Yes, althought a very minor ones.
1. I'd prefer to have BOOST_NDEBUG instead of BOOST_DEBUG, for
consistency with NDEBUG. I simply want BOOST_ASSERT to work for
debug builds. Or doesBOOST_DEBUG have non-empty initial value?
2. failed_exception can be safely derived from std::exception. Unlike
std::logic_error, it does not use std::string.
3. Docs for BOOST_ASSERT say
'Otherwise, if user has already provided a definition for BOOST_ASSERT,
the definition is left unchanged.
Is this accurate? If user has provided its own definition for BOOST_ASSERT,
then calling the BOOST_ASSERT macro will do what user coded. You must
mean that if there's BOOST_ASSERT defined then <boost/assert.hpp> won't
change that definition.
4. I seem to see the point in separate BOOST_ASSERT and BOOST_ASSERT_MSG, but
would like some better documentation on this.
So, the summary is that you code looks very usefull and I'm going to use it.
- Volodya
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
