Re: assert_handler?

From:

thorsten.ottosen@dezide.com (Thorsten Ottosen)

Newsgroups:

comp.std.c++

Date:

Mon, 8 May 2006 22:20:15 GMT

Message-ID:

<445FAD8A.7040107@dezide.com>

Geoff Carlton wrote:

I've read that paper and it is very interesting. However, I was struck
that despite the addition of preconditions, postconditions, and
invariants, there was no actual replacement for a standard assert.

The closest is a block invariant wrapped in its own scope:
myval = func1(x);
{ invariant { myval < 10; } }
myval = func2(x);
{ invariant { myval < 20; } }

Why do you want to wrap the block-invariant in its own scope?

It would be problematic to try redefine assert given its existing macro
nature, but it seems that "assertion" and "assertion_broken" could be
added.

Right, or block_invariant_broken().

There appears no way of obtaining file/line information, even in debug.
The contract handlers could be passed a struct argument which is
implementation defined. This would allow compiler writers to add
location information or even a callstack if they wished, depending on
compiler flags. Best if the struct always had file and line members,
but compilers could leave them null.

This is worth thinking about. Thanks

-Thorsten

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ]
[ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html ]