"David Abrahams" <dave@boostpro.com> wrote in message news:m28wmbf91i.fsf@boostpro.com...
on Tue Apr 07 2009, "troy d. straszheim" <troy-AT-resophonic.com> wrote:
Gevorg Voskanyan wrote:
How about a macro BOOST_PROTO_EXTRA_CHECKING or something like that to have those kind of checks conditionally?
I could see a BOOST_MPL_DISABLE_ASSERTS token, behavior analogous to BOOST_DISABLE_ASSERTS.
It's a very good idea, IMO. Open a ticket?
This flag sounds the same as the BOOST_COMPILE_TIME_DEBUG flag proposed by Eric Niebler here: http://lists.boost.org/boost-users/2009/01/44451.php. Joel de Guzman suggested making it an integer (0 == no CT debug, 1..3 CT debug levels) here: http://lists.boost.org/boostusers/2009/01/44452.php. My thought is to have one of the integer debug levels enable compile-time tracing of "interesting" template instantiations using Steven Watanabe's template_profiler. For this to work, the library author would have to mark the "interesting" template classes and functions with "PROFILE_TRACER()" and bypass Steven's preprocessing stage. Is this workable and/or a good idea? Dave Jenkins