David Abrahams wrote:
John Maddock wrote:
The other issue is with MPL's messages: sorry Dave, but the first time I saw an MPL assertion failure, my immediate reaction was "what the heck is that?" :-(
Don't you think everyone reacts the same way the first time they trigger a BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT?
I know I did, that's for sure. Anyway, Robert Ramey mentioned that Boost.MPL is not the obvious place for anyone to go browsing for a "better BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT". Heck, I didn't realize there was anything like that in there (though, in retrospect, I probably should have guessed). Possibly that part should be factored out, as you mentioned, and BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT implemented in terms of it, as a convenience macro? Of course, regardless, the whole shebang should probably use c++0x static_assert if available, but I've not yet seen the error messages produced by any of the compilers that already support it, so I'm in no position to judge really. /Brian