From: Jaap Suter (J.Suter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-03-12 05:15:48
>> 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)?
Because if we do this to save time, we might as well make sure that we save
as much time as possible.
Benchmarks coming up soon.
Cheers,
Jaap Suter