Re: [boost] [review][constrained_value] Review of Constrained Value Library begins today

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
compiler.

Zach