[Development] Disavowing the Lakos Rule for Q_ASSERT

[Ville Voutilainen]

On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 at 06:17, Ville Voutilainen
<ville.voutilainen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 at 04:59, Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira at intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Said macro should be tied to the precondition itself, if we can. I haven't
> > looked at the syntax: can one macro in one location expand to preconditions-
> > or-noexcept-or-both?
>
> Yes. Here's an example of the syntax for you:
>
> void f(int x) noexcept pre(x >= 0);
>
> The contracts go after everything else, pretty much. Be aware, though,
> that a trailing return type
> goes after a noexcept-spec, and contracts go after a trailing return type.
>
> The full adjusted grammar is in section labeled "Modify [dcl.fct],
> paragraph 1", page 71, in
> https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2024/p2900r8.pdf
>
> If you look at the next page, you'll see that virt-specifiers go after
> a declarator and contracts
> go after the virt-specifiers, so you may also have virt-specifiers in
> between a noexcept-spec and a contract.
> Ain't macroing things fun in C++?

..so I guess I should adjust that first "Yes." to be "Not really."