From: John Torjo (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-08 01:06:28
> BOOST_ASSERT(some_lenghty_function())(???)
>
> Will the old alternative v_() evaluating parameters just once also
> available?
I guess that could also happen. But it would probably uglify and complicate
the syntax. Also, I see three cases here:
1. BOOST_ASSERT(some_lenghty_function());
This is the simple case, which is already covered (you don't have to type
anything else) - see point 14. (handling simple assertions)
2. BOOST_ASSERT( some_lengthy_function() > 10) ( some_lengthy_function());
Indeed, is kind of lengthy, but this is life :-(
The point is that I could provide the v_ macro as well - it would not be too
complicated. What do others think?
3. BOOST_ASSERT( some_lengthy_function(x, y, z));
This should be something like:
BOOST_ASSERT( some_lengthy_function(x, y, z))(x)(y)(z);
>
>
> If not-idempotent function is given as parameter, it may have sideeffects
> (silly contrived example: pool resource allocator which gets exhausted in
> the middle of assert).
I did think (a lot!) about this. But, it's reasonable to assume that
functions/ member functions that are called within an ASSERT should all be
constant, because they won't be called at all in release mode.
Best,
John