== Quote from Andrej Mitrovic (andrej.mitrov...@gmail.com)'s article > On 2/3/11, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote: > > > > Usually the thing to do would be to either comment them out or put an > > assert(0) > Can't do that with classes and struct. > > Regardless, I question the wisdom in adding something into the > > language which _encourages_ you to leave in unfinished code. > > > My use case was protection for the user from using unfinished code by > accident and as a reminder on how much work you're left to do as a > library writer. But you might have a fair point here.
>From a library maintainer's POV, it may be wise to use an internal throw >function. >From a developers POV, there's nothing that assert(! unimplementated) or assert(false) can't do as a way to lay mines around checkpoints that you're uncertain how to set off. :) Both do not require any special language feature to function. Regards
