I once spent several days debugging that same mistake. Stuff worked perfectly in tests but broke misteriously in production builds. Couldn't stop laughing for a few minutes when I finally figured it out.

Indeed.

   bool is_even(int* valPtr) {
      assert(valPtr != nullptr);
      return *valPtr % 2;
    }

[0] https://dev.epicgames.com/documentation/en-us/unreal-engine/...

That's why you define your own assert macro and keep in on unconditionally. Your programs will be better for it.

This is just a symptom of a bad assert() implementation, which funny enough is the standard. If you properly (void) it out, side effects are maintained.

https://github.com/fiberfs/fiberfs/blob/7e79eaabbb180b0f1a79...

Side effects are bad of course, but anything beyond a straight boolean or equality is bad?

`assert(vector.size() < 3)` is ridiculous to you?

I don't mean to be that guy, but for "functional" programmers a print statement has "side effects".

But your meaning is clear. In an assert expression, don't call functions that might change the program/database state. Be as "const" as possible.

In C++ you should probably #include <cstdio> instead of <stdio.h> unless you have a good reason. And especially avoid #including both. <cstdio> provides the function std::getc(..) while <stdio.h> usually provides getc(..) as a macro.

htons(..) and related socket-utility names are also often macros, but I'm pretty sure there is not a std::htons(..) in the C++ standard, partly because 'htons' is not an attractive name. Since it's (sometimes) a macro don't qualify its namespace like ::htons(..).

A long time ago in the Microsoft C (and later C++) dev envs there were macros named "min" and "max", which I thought were terrible names for macros.

Yeah, but the macro system being so pitiful makes me long for one that allows something as magical as fiveam's is (https://github.com/lispci/fiveam/blob/e43d6c8e7da5a80d5c33e8...) instead of having to write special cases for unary and binary predicates.

Preprocessor is just doing text transformations on the sources.

It's not really something that can be fixed, other than moving away from the preprocessor and putting metaprogramming capabilities into the language itself (which C++ has been doing).

I'm sure the standardization committee are always looking for fresh ideas!

A standard way to split a string? Well, what's wrong with:

    std::views::split(my_string, delimeter)

?

I'm still waiting for C++ to support Unicode properly.

  spellcheck.cpp:1:19: error: unexpected character <U+201C>
      1 | assert(spellcheck(“Friednly”));
        |                   ^