From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-08-31 15:07:34
Valentin Bonnard wrote:
>Beman Dawes wrote:
>
>> The real question is whether to stick with assert() or try to
develop
>> something along the lines of assertion<>(). It seems to me that
>> assertion<>() meets identified needs:
>>
>> * Code usually optimized away if not active.
>
>Need a compile time constant to do that.
>
>> * Avoids ODR violations.
*@#$%! assertion<>() does violate the ODR. I was misreading 3.2
[basic.def.odr] paragraph 5. Argh...
>...
>> * Avoids possibly harmful macro usage.
>>
>> Needs identified so far that assertion<>() doesn't meet :
>>
>> * Reporting of file and line.
>
>These are contradicting. We must choose.
Well, it is possible to pass __LINE__ and __FILE__ as arguments, but
you are right in that people probably wouldn't like to do that extra
coding.
>
>> * Parameterization of exception type.
>
>If it's only used for debugguing, it is worth the
>complexity ?
I don't personally know, but included it because Bjarne says it is
useful.
--Beman