Boost logo

Boost :

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-03-19 15:33:56

--- In boost_at_y..., "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_m...> wrote:
> From: <williamkempf_at_h...>
> > 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
> > 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
> the caller _should_ have asserts of his/her own before the call.

In this case it's going to be difficult, if not impossible, for the
caller to "assert" on this stuff. More importantly, this just makes
the caller have to reproduce the same code over and over when the
library could have implemented it once. I still feel uncomfortable
with any approach other than the exception being thrown.

Bill Kempf

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at