From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-12 13:45:06
on Tue Mar 11 2008, "Phil Bouchard" <philippe-AT-fornux.com> wrote:
> "Steven Watanabe" <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> If I remember correctly from the Intrusive review, virtual inheritance can
>> make roofof blow up.
> Unfortunately, yes. I would be possible adding a BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT the
> resulting pointer address is lesser than the member variable inside the
> function but obviously this will not be portable.
If I understand correctly, none of this code is technically portable; it
is only "portable in practice" because of the way C++ is commonly
implemented. Is that correct?
It's not necessarily an argument against these proposals, but all Boost
library submissions should be very clear about where they rely on
unspecified or undefined behavior.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk