In-Reply-To: <loom.20050921T155516-756@post.gmane.org> nesotto@cs.aau.dk (Thorsten Ottosen) wrote (abridged):
I don't get it. If you put BOOST_ASSERT( false ) anywhere, then you effectively say "never exceute this code". Otherwise there is an error in the assertion itself.
Although that's a reasonable point of view, it is not supported by the current documentation, according to which executing BOOST_ASSERT(false) is well-defined and not an error. With some configurations it will invoke boost::assertion_failed(), which will pop up a message box offering to ignore, abort or break into the debugger. As I said in my previous post, I find the current behaviour quite useful. I sometimes use assert as a convenient way of saying, "issue a warning message, but only in debug builds." I actually work with MFC and use their ASSERT macro rather than BOOST_ASSERT. From a selfish point of view I don't care what boost does here because it won't hurt me. My concern is that other people may have used BOOST_ASSERT the same way I use MFC ASSERT. If you're confident no-one has, fine - but I don't see anything in the documentation which says my use is wrong. The documentation does say, "The macro is intended to be used in Boost libraries", which I suppose means we don't need to worry about breaking end-user code.
(The effect of removing an assertion must not be any in a correct program).
Having assert expand to __assume would not be the same as removing it. -- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK.