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
Gennaro Prota wrote:
Just that Borland won't warn on BOOST_INVARIANT(false). Admittedly
not a big one :-)
This warning can be configured away simply by purposely accessing a non-constant
variable or calling an inline function:
inline bool force_non_constant() { return true; }
if
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, I believe what would be more interesting for Boost is the
recent article (http://www.cuj.com/experts/2106/alexandr.htm), written
by
Petru Marginean and myself.
David Abrahams wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, I believe what would be more interesting for Boost is the
recent article (http://www.cuj.com/experts/2106/alexandr.htm),
written by Petru Marginean and myself. (Warning - the article has
recently been
updated.)
Andrei Alexandrescu [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.
No.
Please correct my
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
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
