From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-12 10:44:34
From: "David Abrahams" <abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> Oof. I am still reluctant to add throwing behavior for precondition
> though people seem to want it.
Rightly so, since by definition, if a function is documented to throw if X,
then X is not a precondition.
The user should probably be able to make precondition_violation throw by
overriding it (set_precondition_handler?), but throwing shouldn't be one of
the 'standard' behaviors of precondition_violation.
The options for the documented interface of a function, as I see them, are:
 f() throws if X;
 f() calls precondition_violation if X;
 the behavior of f() is undefined if X.
Having precondition_violation won't make the question of choosing among the
three magically go away, however. :-)
Note that I think that  should work the same in debug or release builds,
with the possible exception that the default handler may do different
things. The check should not disappear.
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk