From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-07-31 14:12:36
John Maddock wrote:
> ...
>
>Anyway its all in the vault under "precondition".
Not to take away from the naming discussion, I would like to focus on the
submission itself.
Nits:
* While there isn't a law that requires it, lots of people expect all C++
source files to begin with a comment line which simply says what's in the
file.
* I like a "Revision History" comments. True, CVS supplies history, but
for casual reading a simple Revision History helps. Or is that just
personal taste on my part? I don't think we ever discussed it.
* How about adding a disclaimer in the docs to the effect: "Boost members
spent considerable effort trying to invent a compile time assert that
avoided macros, all to no avail. The general conclusion was that the good
of a compile time assert working at namespace, function, and class scope
outweighed the ugliness of a macro." Maybe add at the bottom so it doesn't
take away from the central description.
* I had reading comprehension trouble with this sentence:
To avoid this, if you use BOOST_PRECONDITION in a header at namespace
scope, then ensure that the declarations are enclosed in their own unique
namespace.
Possibly clearer:
To avoid this, if you use BOOST_PRECONDITION in a header at namespace
scope, enclose the use in a (possibly nested) namespace unique to that
header.
Basically, I think we ought to settle the name issue, formally review this,
and start using it.
--Beman