Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [review][constrained_value] Review of Constrained Value Library begins today
From: Zach Laine (whatwasthataddress_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-01 13:15:58

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Sebastian Redl
<sebastian.redl_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Zach Laine wrote:
>> Quite true. But the code above is user-supplied, so the user can
>> write their code so that such collisions do not occur, if they need
>> identical behavior to int in NDEBUG mode, or the library author could
>> change the spelling of value() to be something less likely to cause
>> problems, or both.
> Yeah, that would be possible. But you know? I think I'll stick with
> unconstrained. :-)

I agree. In fact, I'd stick with the constrained versions. But there
are always some users who will want to throw a switch and get back to
plain ints, so there is verifiably no performance penalty. For those
users, unconstrained might or might not cut it, depending on their


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