>> Well, considering that what we want is just a no-op, which do you >> prefer? >> >> a) typedef ::boost::static_assert_test< >> sizeof(::boost::STATIC_ASSERTION_FAILURE< (bool)( true ) >)> >> BOOST_JOIN(boost_static_assert_typedef_, _LINE_); >> >> (I've just picked up one of the implementations in static_assert.hpp, >> but the others don't differ too much.) >> >> >> b) typedef void boost_static_assert_typedef; > > The effect is the same. > However, (a) or BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT_IMPL( true ) avoids all of the > (potential?) problems you are worrying about. So why do you prefer > (b)?
Because if we do this to save time, we might as well make sure that we save as much time as possible. Benchmarks coming up soon. Cheers, Jaap Suter _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
