Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Opinion on boost::safe_get<> and default boost::get<> behavior
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-09 19:14:53

Next message: Moshe Rubin: "Re: [boost] Boost 1.57 hot-out-of-Git fails to compile for Windows Phone"
Previous message: Oleg Labutin: "Re: [boost] [RPC] Compile-time reflection for RPC and mocking"
In reply to: Peter Dimov: "Re: [boost] [variant] Opinion on boost::safe_get<> and default boost::get<> behavior"
Next in thread: Antony Polukhin: "Re: [boost] [variant] Opinion on boost::safe_get<> and default boost::get<> behavior"
Reply: Antony Polukhin: "Re: [boost] [variant] Opinion on boost::safe_get<> and default boost::get<> behavior"

On December 9, 2014 2:44:32 PM EST, Peter Dimov <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>my recommendation still stands. Make get<> strict, see what
> happens.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)

Next message: Moshe Rubin: "Re: [boost] Boost 1.57 hot-out-of-Git fails to compile for Windows Phone"
Previous message: Oleg Labutin: "Re: [boost] [RPC] Compile-time reflection for RPC and mocking"
In reply to: Peter Dimov: "Re: [boost] [variant] Opinion on boost::safe_get<> and default boost::get<> behavior"
Next in thread: Antony Polukhin: "Re: [boost] [variant] Opinion on boost::safe_get<> and default boost::get<> behavior"
Reply: Antony Polukhin: "Re: [boost] [variant] Opinion on boost::safe_get<> and default boost::get<> behavior"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

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