Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Opinion on boost::safe_get<> and default boost::get<> behavior
From: Antony Polukhin (antoshkka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-10 07:03:03

Next message: Marco Guazzone: "Re: [boost] [documentation] Are SVG's in documentation viable now?"
Previous message: Moshe Rubin: "Re: [boost] Boost 1.57 hot-out-of-Git fails to compile for Windows Phone"
In reply to: Rob Stewart: "Re: [boost] [variant] Opinion on boost::safe_get<> and default boost::get<> behavior"
Next in thread: David Stone: "Re: [boost] [variant] Opinion on boost::safe_get<> and default boost::get<> behavior"
Reply: David Stone: "Re: [boost] [variant] Opinion on boost::safe_get<> and default boost::get<> behavior"

Thank you all for your comments!

strict_get and relaxed_get sound much better that safe_get/unsafe_get, so I
renamed the new methods.
get<> behavior by default would be strict, while old behavior could be
restored by defining BOOST_VARIANT_USE_RELAXED_GET_BY_DEFAULT.

-- 
Best regards,
Antony Polukhin

Next message: Marco Guazzone: "Re: [boost] [documentation] Are SVG's in documentation viable now?"
Previous message: Moshe Rubin: "Re: [boost] Boost 1.57 hot-out-of-Git fails to compile for Windows Phone"
In reply to: Rob Stewart: "Re: [boost] [variant] Opinion on boost::safe_get<> and default boost::get<> behavior"
Next in thread: David Stone: "Re: [boost] [variant] Opinion on boost::safe_get<> and default boost::get<> behavior"
Reply: David Stone: "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