Re: [boost] [review][constrained_value] ReviewofConstrainedValueLibrary begins today

Subject: Re: [boost] [review][constrained_value] ReviewofConstrainedValueLibrary begins today
From: Chris (indy271828_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-07 19:16:40

Robert Kawulak wrote:
>> From: Chris
>> Quick question, if I made a NullErrorPolicy, and had compiler 
>> optimization on.  Shouldn't the compiler remove all bounded checks? 
>> (empty) There would be no need for me to worry about optimization and 
>> slowness.
>>
>> This would be probably be the proper way rather than myint types;
>>
>> #ifdef MYDEBUG
>> typedef NullErrorPolicy Policy;
>> #else
>> typedef throw_exception 
>> <http://student.agh.edu.pl/%7Ekawulak/constrained_value/refere
>> nce/structboost_1_1constrained__value_1_1throw__exception.html
>>     
>>> <my_exception> 
>>>       
>> Policy;
>> #endif
>>     
>
> And why not simply as described in http://tinyurl.com/6bda78 ?
>   

Because if I have 100 uses of constrained, I don't have 100 typedefs or 
more templates.
I only need that one Policy typedef, and in my code:

#ifdef MYDEBUG
typedef NullErrorPolicy Policy;
#else
typedef throw_exception<my_exception> Policy;
#endif

struct A {

bounded_int<int, 0, 100, Policy> a;
bounded_int<int, 50, 100, Policy> b;
bounded_int<int, 2, 3, Policy> c;

};

It would be the same for compiler optimization as unconstrained, wouldn't it?  It should remove any useless code.