From: "Rob Stewart" <stewart@[...].com> 
>  From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov@[...].net>
>  >
>  > #elif defined(BOOST_ENABLE_ASSERT_HANDLER)
>  >
>  > #include <boost/current_function.hpp>
> 
>  I don't follow what this is about.  The "handler," as I
>  understand it, is assertion_failed() declared below, so why this
>  header?

boost/current_function.hpp defines the BOOST_CURRENT_FUNCTION macro.

>  > - there is no BOOST_ASSERT_MSG. I don't have a strong opinion here. As
the
>  > main purpose of BOOST_ASSERT is to replace the standard assert, and
since
>  > the file/line/function supply enough information, I haven't provided a
>  > BOOST_ASSERT_MSG macro, but I'm not strongly opposed to having one,
either.
> 
>  We find it invaluable to provide explanatory text along with the
>  expression that failed.  We often build strings -- at runtime --
>  that provide additional context information and description in
>  the message.

Interesting perspective. The question that springs to mind is: would you
abandon your ASSERT macro in favor of BOOST_ASSERT_MSG, if it existed? Why
would you want to do that? IOW, what is the intended audience of
BOOST_ASSERT, Boost library developers or "end users"?

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