IIRC I got shot down pretty unanimously the last time I proposed a new libmesh_error/libmesh_assert type macro, but for this proposal I think it's worth trying again:
Would it make sense to have a few variant macros for common assertion cases, so that when those (debug+devel-mode) assertions get tripped we can immediately print more information about the failure? E.g. whereas libmesh_assert(a < b); fails with an error message like Assertion `a < b' failed the variant libmesh_assert_less(a,b); could fail with an error message like Assertion `a < b' failed: `a' = 3, `b' = 2 We'd have similar macros for libmesh_assert_equal(), libmesh_assert_notequal(), and libmesh_assert_lessequal()... or maybe libmesh_assert_equal_to(), libmesh_assert_not_equal_to() and libmesh_assert_less_equal() if people like the <functional> header class names. One catch is that we'd end up evaluating a and b multiple times, which would be bad if a or b had side effects. But putting a term with side effects into an assert macro is already a horrible mistake, so slightly-more-horrible doesn't bother me. Any other ideas/criticisms/feedback? --- Roy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Libmesh-devel mailing list Libmesh-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libmesh-devel
