AMDG Andrey Semashev wrote:
This is a sample error report from BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT:
./assert1.cpp: In instantiation of ‘A<-0x00000000000000005>’: ./assert1.cpp:12: instantiated from here ./assert1.cpp:6: error: invalid application of ‘sizeof’ to incomplete type ‘boost::STATIC_ASSERTION_FAILURE<false>’
And this is what BOOST_MPL_ASSERT_RELATION produces:
./assert2.cpp: In instantiation of ‘A<-0x00000000000000005>’: ./assert2.cpp:12: instantiated from here ./assert2.cpp:6: error: no matching function for call to ‘assertion_failed(mpl_::failed************ mpl_::assert_relation<greater, -0x00000000000000005l, 0l>::************)’
Honestly, I don't see much difference except that, as it was noted, there are hints to the problem source in the latter output. Upper-case STATIC_ASSERTION_FAILURE do highlight error just as well as those asterixes.
If -0x00000000000000005l and 0l are the result of template metaprogramming rather than hard coded, the BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT message is /much/ less helpful, IMO. In Christ, Steven Watanabe