Subject: Re: [boost] Looking for thoughts on a new smart pointer: shared_ptr_nonnull
From: Mostafa (mostafa_working_away_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-02 13:48:51
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 06:07:40 -0700, Thorsten Ottosen
> On 02-10-2013 14:52, Jeff Flinn wrote:
>> As Matt said this would be a precondition violation so an assert would
>> be better than a runtime exception.
> I'd rather see we do as in Boost.PtrContainer: use BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION
> such that if BOOST_NO_EXCEPTION is defined
> (or BOOST_SMART_PTR_NO_EXCEPTION), this becomes an assert. The run-time
> check during construction is not going to be noticed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk