From: "Rob Stewart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > #elif defined(BOOST_ENABLE_ASSERT_HANDLER) > > > > #include <boost/current_function.hpp> > > I don't follow what this is about. The "handler," as I > understand it, is assertion_failed() declared below, so why this > header?
boost/current_function.hpp defines the BOOST_CURRENT_FUNCTION macro. > > - there is no BOOST_ASSERT_MSG. I don't have a strong opinion here. As the > > main purpose of BOOST_ASSERT is to replace the standard assert, and since > > the file/line/function supply enough information, I haven't provided a > > BOOST_ASSERT_MSG macro, but I'm not strongly opposed to having one, either. > > We find it invaluable to provide explanatory text along with the > expression that failed. We often build strings -- at runtime -- > that provide additional context information and description in > the message. Interesting perspective. The question that springs to mind is: would you abandon your ASSERT macro in favor of BOOST_ASSERT_MSG, if it existed? Why would you want to do that? IOW, what is the intended audience of BOOST_ASSERT, Boost library developers or "end users"? _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
