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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk