From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-07-28 13:08:16
David Abrahams wrote:
>None of the names I've seen floating around recently address the
important
>difference between what we're trying to name and the standard assert(),
>namely that ours happens at compile-time. If you're concerned about what
>unfamiliar readers will be able to understand, consider this possible
>reaction.
>"What's this 'verify()' thing? Oh, wonderful. Another case of 'plain old
>assert isn't good enough for me, I'll write my own'. Stupid boost."
>
>COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT says what it means.
That is certainly clear.
The real name would presumably be BOOST_COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT. While that is
lengthy, it probably isn't used in contexts where length matters.
As John Maddock is going to pull it together, he needs to make a decision
on the name so we can move on.
--Beman