I've always used the examples out of TC++PL of some assertions:
template <typename Exception>
assertion (bool const condition) {
if (!condition) {
throw Exception ();
}
}
template <typename Exception>
assertion (bool const condition, Exception const& exception) {
if (!condition) {
throw exception;
}
}
What about having a function-class based assertion that worked like:
assertion (!Sanity::invalidArgument || 0 != p, Throw (invalid_argument
("must not be zero")));
assertion (2 > x, Abort ());
or maybe even
assertion (2 > x, DontCompile ());
---- implementation ---
template <typename Function>
assertion (bool const condition, Function const& f) {
if (!condition) {
f ();
}
}
It looks very idiomatic to me.
I've also found things like this useful:
template <typename Condition, typename Exception>
Condition const& assertNonZero (Condition const& condition) {
if (0 == condition) {
throw Exception ();
}
return condition;
}
Consider:
return x / assertNonZero<range_error> (b - a);
"Kevin S. Van Horn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0211110833530.25298-100000@;speech.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu...
> 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? Should I turn this into a formal proposal for submission to
> Boost? Peter, how does this compare with the changes to
> <boost/assert.hpp> you were planning to do / are doing?
>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
