26 Sep
2009
26 Sep
'09
11:35 p.m.
rozelak@volny.cz wrote:
Bu may I have a question as well? Why do you refuse the extension of BOOST_WARN|CHECK|REQUIRE_* macro by user-defined massage? It seems to me as a natural extension of the macros (it is already possible with BOOST_CHECK_MESSAGE), while it by no means affects the existing interface. Is it so difficult to implement it? Is there a general resistance against interface extension?
There are tons of these. Presenting yet another set of 30 or so macros with very limited advantage does not seem warranted to me. Gennadiy