Re: [boost] Looking for thoughts on a new smart pointer: shared_ptr_nonnull

Subject: Re: [boost] Looking for thoughts on a new smart pointer: shared_ptr_nonnull
From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-09 16:50:19

On 9 October 2013 16:18, Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 9 October 2013 01:31, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]>wrote:
>
> You seem to be completely obsessed by the point that a precondition or
>> invariant violation must always be checked by compiled-away assertions.
>>
>
> You seem completely obsessed to call it a precondition or invariant
> violation.  Why?  All you have to do is make it defined behavior in your
> library; then it isn't a bug and apparently everyone will be happy.

Sigh, that's what I've been suggesting from the start.

http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2013/10/206790.php