From: Dirk Gerrits (dirk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-11 15:55:14
Gennaro Prota wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2003 17:46:17 +0100, Dirk Gerrits
> <dirk_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Perhaps I missed a part of the discussion, but what is wrong with Jaap's
>>suggestion:
>>
>>#ifdef BOOST_STATIC_NDEBUG
>> #define BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT( B ) BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT_IMPL( true )
>>#else
>> #define BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT( B ) BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT_IMPL( B )
>>#endif
>>
>>?
>
>
> Well, considering that what we want is just a no-op, which do you
> prefer?
>
> a) typedef ::boost::static_assert_test<
> sizeof(::boost::STATIC_ASSERTION_FAILURE< (bool)( true ) >)>
> BOOST_JOIN(boost_static_assert_typedef_, __LINE__);
>
> (I've just picked up one of the implementations in static_assert.hpp,
> but the others don't differ too much.)
>
>
> b) typedef void boost_static_assert_typedef;
The effect is the same.
However, (a) or BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT_IMPL( true ) avoids all of the
(potential?) problems you are worrying about. So why do you prefer (b)?
Regards,
Dirk Gerrits