Re: [boost] [safe_numerics] Last three days

Subject: Re: [boost] [safe_numerics] Last three days
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-11 08:48:03

Le 10/03/2017 à 18:22, John Maddock via Boost a écrit :
>
>> I'm very, very concerned that there are only a very few reviews 
>> (actually really just one !!!).  In the past I've railed against the 
>> acceptance of libraries with only two reviews !!!  I don't really 
>> know what else to say about this.  I'll just punt to the review manager.
>>
>
> I think the problem is this: normally we review largely based on 
> interface and the design - get the design right and the internals 
> usually take care of themselves.  However, in this case the design is 
> (hopefully) exceptionally uncontroversial - it looks like an int, 
> smalls like an int, and behaves like an int.  There really isn't much 
> to get your teeth into there.  What really matters is that:
>
> * It's functionally correct.
> * It truly is a drop in replacement for type int, with no nasty 
> surprises.
> * It's performance compared to int isn't so dreadful that no one uses it.

There is one major difference between int and safe<int>.
While int operation don't throw and are seen as noexcept, safe<int> 
operations can throw and can not be declared as noexcept.
It would be different if the policies were required to be noexcept, but 
I know that a lot of people wants to be able to throw exceptions. From 
my side, I prefer to assert in this cases.

Best,
Vicente