Hello all, Shall Boost.Contract static static assertions? 1) N1962 removed static assertions previously added by revisions N1866 and N1773 of the same proposal -- why? 2) In my experience, I never used static assertions within the contracts. However, I am thinking to provide them because they might be useful to better document contract interfaces with assertions that can be efficiently evaluated at compile-time. For example: template<typename T> struct x { CONTRACT_CLASS( (x) ) public: CONTRACT_FUNCTION( (public) (void) (f)( (T)(val) ) (precondition)( (static)(sizeof(T) <= sizeof(long)) // static assertion (checked at compile-time) (val != 0) // run-time assertion ) ({ ... }) }; This code will use one of the BOOST_MPL_ASSERT() to assert the static condition in the precondition function generated by the CONTRACT_FUNCTION() macro. I think this is similar to asserting BOOST_MPL_ASSERT((sizeof(T) <= sizeof(long))) in the function body or at class scope. However, having the static assertion in the contracts has the following advantages: (+) The static assertion compilation and check can be selectively enabled/disabled when preconditions/postcondition/invariants are turned on/off using CONTRACT_CHECK_PRECONDITON/etc. (+) It more clearly documents that the (static) requirement `sizeof(T) <= sizeof(long)` is added by the function f (instead of the class or some other member function). -- Lorenzo