Hi Bruce, 2015-08-02 7:35 GMT+02:00 Bruce Evans <b...@optusnet.com.au>: > This function shouldn't be deprecated. It is a kernel wrapper with a > good name for hiding the implementation detail or not-yet standard > interface _Static_assert().
_Static_assert has been part of the C standard for approximately 4 years now. I personally couldn't care less about the naming, but in a couple of years from now we'll have an entire generation of recently graduated computer scientists who know what _Static_assert does, because they used it in their C/C++ programming classes. None of them know what a 'CTASSERT' is. We constantly complain about how hard it is to attract new developers to the project. Maybe it's because we require them to learn nonsensical things in order to contribute code. > CTASSERT() is the compile-time variant of KASSERT(). We intentionally > use KASSERT() instead of anything like the standard assert(3) since > we don't like the API or semantics of assert() and want one with > different design and implementation bugs. I can't think of any use > for different semantics to _Static_assert(), but using CTASSERT() > retains flexibility. The problem with this reasoning is that it can be extrapolated. Why is _Static_assert() special in this regard? Why wouldn't we then write a wrapper around 'while' and use it all over our codebase, simply to retain flexibility? -- Ed Schouten <e...@nuxi.nl> Nuxi, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands KvK/VAT number: 62051717 _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
