On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 20:41:26 -0800, "Jaap Suter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> #define BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(c) \ >> typedef char boost_static_assert_typedef >> >> When using several asserts in the same context some compilers could >> complain about the duplicate typedef; if so pasting the expansion of >> __LINE__ shouldn't be that expensive either. > >That seems indeed the best solution to me (with the __LINE__ included) as >most of the time is spend in calculations for the actual expression. In effect I would prefer the one without __LINE__. But if any compiler warns about duplicate typedefs than it's better having a single version, with __LINE__, than #ifs. Also I have a slight preference for using void instead of char, as suggested by Greg: typedef void boost_static_assert_typedef >> But all this conjectures >> should be backed up by some measurement. Jaap? > >Agreed. I will do some measurements this week and report back in a few days. Nice :-) Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
