"Edward Diener" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 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
I think so. > 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. Can you show me a better example? This is not a challenge. Really, if this ENFORCE idea is a useful one I want to understand it. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
