Message: 3

Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 15:51:05 +0200 From: Mateusz Loskot <mateusz@loskot.net> Subject: Re: [boost] boost::static_assert name rationale ? To: boost@lists.boost.org Message-ID: <44FED249.2050506@loskot.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Philippe Vaucher wrote:

...

Hello,

I have a rather silly question, but why is boost::static_assert named static_assert and not compile_assert ? It's probably a lack of understanding of the static concept on my side but I can't find what's static in a compile-time assertion :)

According to my understanding, 'static' term is used to name compile-time operations, mostly in meta programming. It's similar distinction as between dynamic polymorphism (run-time, through virtual functions) and static polymorphism (compile-time, implemented with templates).

Cheers

I think the wording was modeled on static_cast<...> vs dynamic_cast<...> in the standard library. Cheers, Matthew Herrmann