Re: [boost] Is there interest in unit testing both passing and failing BOOST_MPL_ASSERTs?

Why not use the function-type-trick with double parentheses employed by BOOST_MPL_ASSERT and avoid the need to write a separate typedef?

Because when there is a syntax error, the compiler can point me to the location of the error in the typedef. When I define the body of the predicate in a macro call, the compiler points me to the macro call, thus the error is more difficult to locate. Regards, Abel