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