On Mon, 5 May 2003 20:12:13 -0700, "Paul Mensonides" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Daniel Frey wrote: >> Paul Mensonides wrote: >> >>> #define BOOST_INVARIANT(expr) \ >>> if (!(expr)) \ >> >> One possible enhancment: >> >> if( expr ); else >> >> It prevents problems when the macro is used in other >> if-else-structures. > >Thanks Daniel, I forgot about that... That's right. But if this will ever get into boost maybe we'll better use the classical do-while(0). Borland warns on if(false), and assert(false) is quite common, for instance, in the default case of switch statements. BOOST_INVARIANT(false) could be used similarly (Though, depending on the people who would speak in the formal review, we could choose to have a separate macro for 'assert always'-like cases, with no condition argument) Genny. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
