Re: [boost] updated version of safe integer library

Subject: Re: [boost] updated version of safe integer library
From: Noah (duneroadrunner_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-04 00:32:15

On 2/3/2016 4:41 PM, Robert Ramey wrote:

> The only problem is that someone is going to say: "Wait - I don't need
> initialization! it's non-optimal".  He might be right" but I doubt it
> matters.  but safe integer isn't exactly equivalent to int any more it
> has different behavior - I hate it when this happens.  So the best
> would be to include an initialization bit inside safe<int> uh-oh another
> howl.

What's wrong with having an initialization bit in debug mode only? Are 
we worried about "hiding errors" outside of debug mode? Or are we 
worried about code that makes assumptions about the size of the int data 
type?