From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-07-29 07:52:38
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathan Myers" <ncm_at_[hidden]>
> I agree BOOST_COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT() would work, but, as I like to say
> (until everyone is barking mad), "there's a lot to be said for brevity".
I never said I liked it, but it was better (IMO) than anything else we had
so far.
> BOOST_PROVEN() is simply a lot shorter, leaving room for a lot
> more expression in the parentheses. Likewise BOOST_BEHOLD() or
> BOOST_WE_KNOW(). BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT() is at least shorter than
> Dave's current favorite.
I actually like BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT, but was afraid to induce the wrath of
the "static overloading" gods.
I'm not so happy with those others. If you think X is proven to be true,
there's no point in adding a construct that breaks the compile if X is
false. Or let me say that differently: we often want to assert a condition
which is manifestly _not_ proven to be true so that we can enforce proper
usage. That works against BOOST_PROVEN and BOOST_WE_KNOW. BOOST_BEHOLD is
just too prestidigitatory (?) for my taste ;)
-Dave