On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:46:17 +0100, Dirk Gerrits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps I missed a part of the discussion, but what is wrong with Jaap's suggestion:
#ifdef BOOST_STATIC_NDEBUG #define BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT( B ) BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT_IMPL( true ) #else #define BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT( B ) BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT_IMPL( B ) #endif
?
Well, considering that what we want is just a no-op, which do you prefer?
a) typedef ::boost::static_assert_test< sizeof(::boost::STATIC_ASSERTION_FAILURE< (bool)( true ) >)> BOOST_JOIN(boost_static_assert_typedef_, __LINE__);
(I've just picked up one of the implementations in static_assert.hpp, but the others don't differ too much.)
b) typedef void boost_static_assert_typedef;
The effect is the same.
However, (a) or BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT_IMPL( true ) avoids all of the (potential?) problems you are worrying about. So why do you prefer (b)?
Regards,
Dirk Gerrits
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
