Stefan Seefeld <seefeld@sympatico.ca> writes: | Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
Which brings be to a nother point: It is _very_ bad of a library to require of the application to define NDEBUG to work properly. (The application should be able to decide for itself how NDEBUG/assert should be used.) Ublas should stop using NDEBUG and create their own BOOST_UBLAS_DEBUG or similar and use that instead.
| Are you saying library code may not use the standard 'assert' macro, | then, at least not in headers ?
| I don't quite agree with your statement. In fact, whenever you are using | libraries that are mostly implemented in headers, it becomes very hard | to encapsulate behavior the way you seem to request. Still, forcing the application to not be able to use standard assert as it'd like is not really acceptable. And if I am not mistaken something similar to my imagined BOOST_UBLAS_DEBUG is used for almost all other boost libraries. (At the very least the do not use NDEBUG as a switch for anything) (I see that other libs also use NDEBUG/ASSERT, and think that too is bad. But for ublas the implications are a lot worse. 3 magnitudes of performace is not to shrug at.) -- Lgb