David Abrahams wrote: > "Andrei Alexandrescu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> By the way, I believe what would be more interesting for Boost is the >> recent article (http://www.cuj.com/experts/2106/alexandr.htm), >> written by Petru Marginean and myself. (Warning - the article has >> recently been >> updated.) >> >> We have good experience in reducing source code size by using >> enforcements. There are a number of interesting techniques used out >> there, and I believe ENFORCE would be quite useful as a Boost >> library. > > I browsed the article (I confess to not having read everything, so > please correct any misapprehensions). My sense is that the technique > is oriented towards detecting programmer errors and responding via an > exception.
I don't think ENFORCE is oriented toward that at all. There's no orientation involved other than to throw an exception based on a condition. I agree with you that direct programming errors should generally not throw exceptions but should ASSERT so that the programmer can fix the error. However I don't think ENFORCE has anything to do with this debate about when to ASSERT and when to throw exceptions. Perhaps the examples give the impression which you have, but I think the problem is just choosing better examples in which one would want to throw an exception and not a technical issue as to the benefits of using ENFORCE in order to simplify exception throwing. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
