--- Daniel Frey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gennaro Prota wrote: > > 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 ;-) > >> > > > > 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': > > But that does not give you any benefit at all, does it?
Just that Borland won't warn on BOOST_INVARIANT(false). Admittedly not a big one :-) > The > do-while-idiom is very different from the while-version you suggest. Indeed. I did say that I misread your post. Sorry for the noise. Genny. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
