assert

**Peter Oliphant** · Oct 22 '07, 03:25 PM

Re: assert

I created and use this class, you might find it useful. It contains some
useful methods, pretty easy to figure out from their names. Note that I use
'assert' to answer your question:

#include 'assert.h'

#define MY_DEBUG (true)

ref class My_Debug
{
public:

static void Assert( bool condition )
{
Assert( condition, "<no text>" ) ;
}

static void Show( String^ comment )
{
Console::WriteL ine( comment ) ;
}

static void Assert( bool condition, String^ info )
{
if ( condition ) { return ; }
Console::WriteL ine() ;
Console::WriteL ine( info ) ;
Console::WriteL ine() ;
assert(!MY_DEBU G) ; // when debug is on then assert false
}

static void Deny( bool condition )
{
Assert( !condition ) ;
}

static void Deny( bool condition, String^ info )
{
Assert( !condition, info ) ;
}

static void Abort( String^ info )
{
Assert( false, info ) ;
}

static void Abort()
{
Abort( "*abort*" ) ;
}
} ;

// [==Peter==]

"George" <George@discuss ions.microsoft. comwrote in message
news:C12D5DAD-5D70-41CC-8CC3-3423482E0B41@mi crosoft.com...

Hello everyone,
>
>
I saw a couple of form of assert in code on Windows,
>
1. ASSERT;
2. assert;
3. _ASSERT;
4. _assert.
>
Which one is the most correct to use? I saw people always define this to
that, and I want to find the root one which is defined by Windows.
>
I also saw people manually define assert to NULL if macro DEBUG or _DEBUG
is
not defined, is that necessary?
>
I feel assert is in a mess and I want to find a clear and unified way for
this item.
>
>
thanks in advance,
George

**Cholo Lennon** · Oct 22 '07, 03:35 PM

Re: assert

Generally I prefer to use 'assert' because is standard, but in MFC/ATL I use
ASSERT because the debugger stop on the offending line (this is not true for
assert). I've just used _ASSERT on a few occasions (when I used CRT debugging
functions to find a leak).

Be aware that:

- assert depends of NDEBUG macro.
- ASSERT and _ASSERT depend of _DEBUG macro.

Regards

--
Cholo Lennon
Bs.As.
ARG

"George" <George@discuss ions.microsoft. comwrote in message
news:C12D5DAD-5D70-41CC-8CC3-3423482E0B41@mi crosoft.com...

Hello everyone,
>
>
I saw a couple of form of assert in code on Windows,
>
1. ASSERT;
2. assert;
3. _ASSERT;
4. _assert.
>
Which one is the most correct to use? I saw people always define this to
that, and I want to find the root one which is defined by Windows.
>
I also saw people manually define assert to NULL if macro DEBUG or _DEBUG is
not defined, is that necessary?
>
I feel assert is in a mess and I want to find a clear and unified way for
this item.
>
>
thanks in advance,
George

**=?Utf-8?B?R2Vvcmdl?=** · Oct 23 '07, 06:05 AM

Re: assert

Thanks Peter,

The class is very useful. I have a further question, why do you add ref
before class?

regards,
George

"Peter Oliphant" wrote:

I created and use this class, you might find it useful. It contains some
useful methods, pretty easy to figure out from their names. Note that I use
'assert' to answer your question:
>
#include 'assert.h'
>
#define MY_DEBUG (true)
>
ref class My_Debug
{
public:
>
static void Assert( bool condition )
{
Assert( condition, "<no text>" ) ;
}
>
static void Show( String^ comment )
{
Console::WriteL ine( comment ) ;
}
>
static void Assert( bool condition, String^ info )
{
if ( condition ) { return ; }
Console::WriteL ine() ;
Console::WriteL ine( info ) ;
Console::WriteL ine() ;
assert(!MY_DEBU G) ; // when debug is on then assert false
}
>
static void Deny( bool condition )
{
Assert( !condition ) ;
}
>
static void Deny( bool condition, String^ info )
{
Assert( !condition, info ) ;
}
>
static void Abort( String^ info )
{
Assert( false, info ) ;
}
>
static void Abort()
{
Abort( "*abort*" ) ;
}
} ;
>
// [==Peter==]
>
"George" <George@discuss ions.microsoft. comwrote in message
news:C12D5DAD-5D70-41CC-8CC3-3423482E0B41@mi crosoft.com...

Hello everyone,

I saw a couple of form of assert in code on Windows,

1. ASSERT;
2. assert;
3. _ASSERT;
4. _assert.

Which one is the most correct to use? I saw people always define this to
that, and I want to find the root one which is defined by Windows.

I also saw people manually define assert to NULL if macro DEBUG or _DEBUG
is
not defined, is that necessary?

I feel assert is in a mess and I want to find a clear and unified way for
this item.

thanks in advance,
George

>
>
>

**=?Utf-8?B?R2Vvcmdl?=** · Oct 23 '07, 06:25 AM

Re: assert

Thanks Cholo,

What do you mean *because the debugger stop on the offending line*? Debugger
will stop even if the value is true?

regards,
George

"Cholo Lennon" wrote:

Generally I prefer to use 'assert' because is standard, but in MFC/ATL I use
ASSERT because the debugger stop on the offending line (this is not true for
assert). I've just used _ASSERT on a few occasions (when I used CRT debugging
functions to find a leak).
>
Be aware that:
>
- assert depends of NDEBUG macro.
- ASSERT and _ASSERT depend of _DEBUG macro.
>
>
Regards
>
--
Cholo Lennon
Bs.As.
ARG
>
>
"George" <George@discuss ions.microsoft. comwrote in message
news:C12D5DAD-5D70-41CC-8CC3-3423482E0B41@mi crosoft.com...

Hello everyone,

I saw a couple of form of assert in code on Windows,

1. ASSERT;
2. assert;
3. _ASSERT;
4. _assert.

Which one is the most correct to use? I saw people always define this to
that, and I want to find the root one which is defined by Windows.

I also saw people manually define assert to NULL if macro DEBUG or _DEBUG is
not defined, is that necessary?

I feel assert is in a mess and I want to find a clear and unified way for
this item.

thanks in advance,
George

>
>
>

**Cholo Lennon** · Oct 23 '07, 12:55 PM

Re: assert

No, only when the value is false.

I'm sorry, when I said "...debugge r stops on...", I should have said
"...debugge r breaks on...".

Try to debug a program using assert(false) and ASSERT(false) to see what
happens. In the 1st case the debugger break into an internal function. In the
2nd case it just break on the ASSERT line.

Regards

--
Cholo Lennon
Bs.As.
ARG

"George" <George@discuss ions.microsoft. comwrote in message
news:46869F9D-9AAA-43D4-B3F2-17A66AEC26A0@mi crosoft.com...

Thanks Cholo,
>
>
What do you mean *because the debugger stop on the offending line*? Debugger
will stop even if the value is true?
>
>
regards,
George
>
"Cholo Lennon" wrote:
>

Generally I prefer to use 'assert' because is standard, but in MFC/ATL I use
ASSERT because the debugger stop on the offending line (this is not true for
assert). I've just used _ASSERT on a few occasions (when I used CRT

debugging

functions to find a leak).

Be aware that:

- assert depends of NDEBUG macro.
- ASSERT and _ASSERT depend of _DEBUG macro.

Regards

--
Cholo Lennon
Bs.As.
ARG

"George" <George@discuss ions.microsoft. comwrote in message
news:C12D5DAD-5D70-41CC-8CC3-3423482E0B41@mi crosoft.com...

Hello everyone,
>
>
I saw a couple of form of assert in code on Windows,
>
1. ASSERT;
2. assert;
3. _ASSERT;
4. _assert.
>
Which one is the most correct to use? I saw people always define this to
that, and I want to find the root one which is defined by Windows.
>
I also saw people manually define assert to NULL if macro DEBUG or _DEBUG

is

not defined, is that necessary?
>
I feel assert is in a mess and I want to find a clear and unified way for
this item.
>
>
thanks in advance,
George

**=?Utf-8?B?R2Vvcmdl?=** · Oct 23 '07, 02:45 PM

Re: assert

Thanks Cholo,

It is my mistake to misunderstand your points. Now I am clear now.

regards,
George

"Cholo Lennon" wrote:

No, only when the value is false.
>
I'm sorry, when I said "...debugge r stops on...", I should have said
"...debugge r breaks on...".
>
Try to debug a program using assert(false) and ASSERT(false) to see what
happens. In the 1st case the debugger break into an internal function. In the
2nd case it just break on the ASSERT line.
>
Regards
>
--
Cholo Lennon
Bs.As.
ARG
>
>
"George" <George@discuss ions.microsoft. comwrote in message
news:46869F9D-9AAA-43D4-B3F2-17A66AEC26A0@mi crosoft.com...

Thanks Cholo,

What do you mean *because the debugger stop on the offending line*? Debugger
will stop even if the value is true?

regards,
George

"Cholo Lennon" wrote:

Generally I prefer to use 'assert' because is standard, but in MFC/ATL I use
ASSERT because the debugger stop on the offending line (this is not true for
assert). I've just used _ASSERT on a few occasions (when I used CRT

debugging

functions to find a leak).
>
Be aware that:
>
- assert depends of NDEBUG macro.
- ASSERT and _ASSERT depend of _DEBUG macro.
>
>
Regards
>
--
Cholo Lennon
Bs.As.
ARG
>
>
"George" <George@discuss ions.microsoft. comwrote in message
news:C12D5DAD-5D70-41CC-8CC3-3423482E0B41@mi crosoft.com...
Hello everyone,

I saw a couple of form of assert in code on Windows,

1. ASSERT;
2. assert;
3. _ASSERT;
4. _assert.

Which one is the most correct to use? I saw people always define this to
that, and I want to find the root one which is defined by Windows.

I also saw people manually define assert to NULL if macro DEBUG or _DEBUG

is

not defined, is that necessary?

I feel assert is in a mess and I want to find a clear and unified way for
this item.

thanks in advance,
George
>
>
>

>
>
>

**Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]** · Oct 23 '07, 03:45 PM

Re: assert

"George" <George@discuss ions.microsoft. comwrote in message
news:F7F3302C-C41E-4764-840C-8287505F0E3D@mi crosoft.com...

Thanks Peter,
>
>
The class is very useful. I have a further question, why do you add ref
before class?

That makes it a .NET class, visible from other .NET languages.

>
>
regards,
George
>
"Peter Oliphant" wrote:
>

>I created and use this class, you might find it useful. It contains some
>useful methods, pretty easy to figure out from their names. Note that I
>use
>'assert' to answer your question:
>>
>#include 'assert.h'
>>
>#define MY_DEBUG (true)
>>
>ref class My_Debug
>{
> public:
>>
> static void Assert( bool condition )
> {
> Assert( condition, "<no text>" ) ;
> }
>>
> static void Show( String^ comment )
> {
> Console::WriteL ine( comment ) ;
> }
>>
> static void Assert( bool condition, String^ info )
> {
> if ( condition ) { return ; }
> Console::WriteL ine() ;
> Console::WriteL ine( info ) ;
> Console::WriteL ine() ;
> assert(!MY_DEBU G) ; // when debug is on then assert false
> }
>>
> static void Deny( bool condition )
> {
> Assert( !condition ) ;
> }
>>
> static void Deny( bool condition, String^ info )
> {
> Assert( !condition, info ) ;
> }
>>
> static void Abort( String^ info )
> {
> Assert( false, info ) ;
> }
>>
> static void Abort()
> {
> Abort( "*abort*" ) ;
> }
>} ;
>>
>// [==Peter==]
>>
>"George" <George@discuss ions.microsoft. comwrote in message
>news:C12D5DA D-5D70-41CC-8CC3-3423482E0B41@mi crosoft.com...

Hello everyone,
>
>
I saw a couple of form of assert in code on Windows,
>
1. ASSERT;
2. assert;
3. _ASSERT;
4. _assert.
>
Which one is the most correct to use? I saw people always define this
to
that, and I want to find the root one which is defined by Windows.
>
I also saw people manually define assert to NULL if macro DEBUG or
_DEBUG
is
not defined, is that necessary?
>
I feel assert is in a mess and I want to find a clear and unified way
for
this item.
>
>
thanks in advance,
George

>>
>>
>>

**Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]** · Oct 23 '07, 03:55 PM

Re: assert

"Peter Oliphant" <poliphant@roun dtripllc.comwro te in message
news:u5Px4qYFIH A.4196@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

>I have a further question, why do you add ref before class?

>
There are two basic kinds of classes (or structs, since structs are now
just classes that are internally default public): reference classes and
value classes.

Everything you wrote is true about .NET types. The C++/CLI compiler
supports .NET types of both varieties (actually four varieties, if you
include interfaces and enums), and also standard C++ classes, PODs, and
enums. So for the C++/CLI programmer, there are many different kinds.

**=?Utf-8?B?R2Vvcmdl?=** · Oct 24 '07, 03:35 AM

Re: assert

Thanks Ben,

regards,
George

"Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" wrote:

>
"George" <George@discuss ions.microsoft. comwrote in message
news:F7F3302C-C41E-4764-840C-8287505F0E3D@mi crosoft.com...

Thanks Peter,

The class is very useful. I have a further question, why do you add ref
before class?

>
That makes it a .NET class, visible from other .NET languages.
>
>

regards,
George

"Peter Oliphant" wrote:

I created and use this class, you might find it useful. It contains some
useful methods, pretty easy to figure out from their names. Note that I
use
'assert' to answer your question:
>
#include 'assert.h'
>
#define MY_DEBUG (true)
>
ref class My_Debug
{
public:
>
static void Assert( bool condition )
{
Assert( condition, "<no text>" ) ;
}
>
static void Show( String^ comment )
{
Console::WriteL ine( comment ) ;
}
>
static void Assert( bool condition, String^ info )
{
if ( condition ) { return ; }
Console::WriteL ine() ;
Console::WriteL ine( info ) ;
Console::WriteL ine() ;
assert(!MY_DEBU G) ; // when debug is on then assert false
}
>
static void Deny( bool condition )
{
Assert( !condition ) ;
}
>
static void Deny( bool condition, String^ info )
{
Assert( !condition, info ) ;
}
>
static void Abort( String^ info )
{
Assert( false, info ) ;
}
>
static void Abort()
{
Abort( "*abort*" ) ;
}
} ;
>
// [==Peter==]
>
"George" <George@discuss ions.microsoft. comwrote in message
news:C12D5DAD-5D70-41CC-8CC3-3423482E0B41@mi crosoft.com...
Hello everyone,

I saw a couple of form of assert in code on Windows,

1. ASSERT;
2. assert;
3. _ASSERT;
4. _assert.

Which one is the most correct to use? I saw people always define this
to
that, and I want to find the root one which is defined by Windows.

I also saw people manually define assert to NULL if macro DEBUG or
_DEBUG
is
not defined, is that necessary?

I feel assert is in a mess and I want to find a clear and unified way
for
this item.

thanks in advance,
George
>
>
>

>
>
>

**=?Utf-8?B?R2Vvcmdl?=** · Oct 24 '07, 04:05 AM

Re: assert

Thanks Ben,

I am using unmanaged C++ in Visual Studio 2005. Could I use such keyword
like ref and value? If yes, could you recommmend some learning resource
please?

regards,
George

"Ben Voigt [C++ MVP]" wrote:

>
"Peter Oliphant" <poliphant@roun dtripllc.comwro te in message
news:u5Px4qYFIH A.4196@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

I have a further question, why do you add ref before class?

There are two basic kinds of classes (or structs, since structs are now
just classes that are internally default public): reference classes and
value classes.

>
Everything you wrote is true about .NET types. The C++/CLI compiler
supports .NET types of both varieties (actually four varieties, if you
include interfaces and enums), and also standard C++ classes, PODs, and
enums. So for the C++/CLI programmer, there are many different kinds.
>
>
>

**David Wilkinson** · Oct 24 '07, 12:55 PM

Re: assert

George wrote:

Thanks Ben,
>
>
I am using unmanaged C++ in Visual Studio 2005. Could I use such keyword
like ref and value? If yes, could you recommmend some learning resource
please?

George:

The keywords ref and value are for managed code (C++/CLI) only.

If you are using unmanaged code, you would be better posting in

microsoft.publi c.vc.language

The group

microsoft.publi c.dotnet.langua ges.vc

is for managed code.

--
David Wilkinson
Visual C++ MVP

**=?Utf-8?B?R2Vvcmdl?=** · Oct 25 '07, 09:05 AM

Re: assert

Thanks for your clarification, David!

regards,
George

"David Wilkinson" wrote:

George wrote:

Thanks Ben,

I am using unmanaged C++ in Visual Studio 2005. Could I use such keyword
like ref and value? If yes, could you recommmend some learning resource
please?

>
George:
>
The keywords ref and value are for managed code (C++/CLI) only.
>
If you are using unmanaged code, you would be better posting in
>
microsoft.publi c.vc.language
>
The group
>
microsoft.publi c.dotnet.langua ges.vc
>
is for managed code.
>
--
David Wilkinson
Visual C++ MVP
>

assert

assert

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment