Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
>  It's been six days since I posted this, without a single response, so I'm 
>  going to try again.  Based on earlier discussions, I thought there might 
>  be some interest in this.  Does anyone have any problems with the proposed 
>  interface?  

Yes, althought a very minor ones.

1. I'd prefer to have BOOST_NDEBUG instead of BOOST_DEBUG, for
consistency with NDEBUG. I simply want BOOST_ASSERT to work for
debug builds. Or doesBOOST_DEBUG have non-empty initial value?

2. failed_exception can be safely derived from std::exception. Unlike
    std::logic_error, it does not use std::string.

3. Docs for BOOST_ASSERT say
    'Otherwise, if user has already provided a definition for BOOST_ASSERT,
     the definition is left unchanged.

    Is this accurate? If user has provided its own definition for BOOST_ASSERT,
    then calling the BOOST_ASSERT macro will do what user coded. You must
    mean that if there's BOOST_ASSERT defined then <boost/assert.hpp>  won't
    change that definition.

4. I seem to see the point in separate BOOST_ASSERT and BOOST_ASSERT_MSG, but
    would like some better documentation on this.

So, the summary is that you code looks very usefull and I'm going to use it.

- Volodya

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost