Re: [boost] Re: Boost.Threads draft library submission

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-19 14:49:53

From: <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>

> This is the part that's still tricky to me, at least in this
> particular case.  The violations are user violations (almost all
> precondition violations are user violations by definition).  Here you
> say to call it undefined behavior and to do what ever I like, but
> earlier it was stated that all undefined behaviors should be
> asserted, which makes sense at a high level.

True, however consider the fact that if you document an undefined behavior
the caller _should_ have asserts of his/her own before the call.

You can make your "undefined behavior" prettier as a QoI but if your users
follow this practice they won't ever see it.

Tradeoffs... Perhaps we should have a "debug" boost build, like STLPort
does?

--
Peter Dimov
Multi Media Ltd.