On Thu, 8 May 2003 15:06:02 +0300, "John Torjo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Unfortunately, we can't use the do-while(0) idiom, since we don't know when
>while(0) will be ;-)
>
>Example:
>BOOST_ASSERT(i != j)(i)(j);
>
>or
>
>BOOST_ASSERT(i > 1000)(i);
Oops, no. That's not the problem. The problem is that I read Daniel's
reply out of context and too absent-mindedly :-) I thought it was
something like
if (false) ; else
whereas he is really testing for a condition
if(expr)...
However, if you are going to abort at the end (or throw, but I don't
want to enter in this matter) you can simply replace 'if' with
'while':
#define BOOST_INVARIANT(expr) \
while /*if*/ (!(expr)) \
boost::invariant(), \
std::clog << "invariant failure: " #expr, \
boost::BOOST_INVARIANT_A \
\
/**/
But don't care about that. Had I noticed that there was really a
condition I wouldn't have replied. And, then, Borland will find some
way to warn in any case :-)
>note: see the 'smart assert' thread, where we discuss details about the
>interface/ implementation of the smart assert (BOOST_ASSERT)
I have no time. And, from the little I've read, I've noticed quite a
confusion between exceptions and asserts.
Genny.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
