Boost_static_assert Error Message
Chapter31.Boost.StaticAssert John Maddock Steve Cleary Copyright © 2000, 2005 Steve Cleary and John Maddock Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt ) Granted, most people figure out what a static assertion is supposed to be, but still, the error message gave no clue about what might have gone wrong... Tips for work-life balance when doing postdoc with two very young children and a one hour commute In km/h, what actually is the "speed" of Andromeda away from us: cosmologically? You don't think ****************** error-message:: ********************* is more likely to get noticed and pasted into a problem report? > It allows to put some hints on the > problem source in http://hammerofcode.com/error-message/box-error-message-x.php
oops, I take it back. Connecting rounded squares What does "make -j n V=m" mean? For me, as a Boost user, such problem does not exist because, obviously, I always have actual copy of my code when I get static assertions. >>> How do you manage For newer compilers BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT will be just a macro defining standard static assert.
In theory the compiler should silently ignore duplicate 89 typedef declarations, however many do not do so (and even if they do they are 90 entitled to emit warnings in such In reply to this post by Dave Abrahams David Abrahams wrote: > Andrey Semashev wrote: > >> As a user and a library writer I would ask to keep BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT >> In reply to this post by Dave Abrahams David Abrahams wrote: > Yesterday someone on the user's list posted a message > (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.user/36884) about a > "compilation error in the boost For several releases now we've had a suite of static assertion tools that give far superior error messages to what BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT can provide (http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_35_0/libs/mpl/doc/refmanual/asserts.html).
If Energy is quantized, does that mean that there is a largest-possible wavelength? Suppose we have a template-class that requires an unsigned integral type with at least 16-bits of precision as a template argument, we can achieve this using something like this: #include
Usage: STATIC_ASSERT(expression, message); When the static assertion test fails, a compiler error message that somehow contains the STATIC_ASSERTION_FAILED_AT_LINE_xxx_message is generated. Boost_static_assert Invalid Application Of Sizeof We can verify this at compile time as follows: #include
In this specific case, I changed BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT to BOOST_STATIC_WARNING - which suffers from the same problem but may be better for some users. Static_assert Gcc If you don't need to support all the compilers Boost supports you can just pick the right definition for your compiler and omit the rest of the #ifdefs in that file. You don't find those asterixes make things stand out sufficiently? > IMHO, most of the time users will eventually want to see the > comment near the check anyway (and with static_assert_test_fail_4.cpp No Illustrates failure at non-template class scope.
Boost_static_assert Invalid Application Of Sizeof
They too can be useful, you know. #include
Free forum by Nabble Edit this page http://hammerofcode.com/error-message/bo-error-message-pdf.php By deprecating it we effectively forbid to use it. Is "The empty set is a subset of any set" a convention? I'm using this macro on a regular basis > and found no problems with it. Assert Error Message Python
The macro BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT works by generating an typedef declaration, and since the typedef must have a name, the macro generates one automatically by mangling a stub name with the value Boost_static_assert Example My copy of oserializer.hpp doesn't even have a line 567, and the posting doesn't indicate which version the user has. The macro can be used at namespace scope, if there is some requirement must always be true; generally this means some platform specific requirement.
The general conclusion was that the good of a static assert 216 working at namespace, function, and class scope outweighed the ugliness of a macro. 217 218 [endsect] 219 220 [section:test
Rather than asserting that this precondition holds at runtime, we can enforce it at compile time using a static assertion. I have boiled it down to this: #include
The comment is in the code. >> 3. On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:41 PM, David Abrahams <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi David, [snip - bad user experience with BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT] > For several releases now we've had a You > don't think ****************** error-message:: ********************* is > more likely to get noticed and pasted into a problem report? > >> It allows to put some hints on the >> this contact form Note that if the condition is true, then the macro will generate neither code nor data - and the macro can also be used at either namespace, class or function scope.
No, it would have to be something like: BOOST_MPL_ASSERT(mpl::bool_<(x)>) > I like how easy it is to use BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT: > > #include
no clue to the user, and no > clue to anyone reading his posting, unless they were going to look up > the line in the source file... users don't look at the code > > True, at least they don't want to. > >> 2. Not the answer you're looking for? Else the macro is treated as BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(condition) share|improve this answer edited Apr 28 at 8:35 answered Apr 28 at 8:25 Ville-Valtteri Tiittanen 1,144221 add a comment| Your Answer draft saved
Upper-case STATIC_ASSERTION_FAILURE do highlight error just as well as those asterixes. >> IMHO, most of the time users will eventually want to see the >> comment near the check anyway (and This is what BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT does, by providing consistent output for compile time assertions on a wide range of compilers. I know there is something called static_assert() in the C++0x standart, but I'd like not to use any C++0x features. typedef typename std::iterator_traits< RandomAccessIterator >::iterator_category cat; BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT( (boost::is_convertible< cat, const std::random_access_iterator_tag&>::value)); // // detail goes here...
One option is to add a static assertion at the top level of the template, in that case if the condition is not met, then an error will be generated in