Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] High level summary of review feedback accepted so far
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-29 11:03:29
Le 29/05/2017 Ã 09:23, Gavin Lambert via Boost a Ã©crit :
> On 28/05/2017 10:46, Niall Douglas wrote:
>>>> I would agree. But well, we were outvoted. And that probably means
>>>> rejection of this library, as the presented library does not implement
>>>> what the majority want (yet).
> Just to clarify the meaning, since I'm not especially fluent in
> standardese: by "narrow contract" you mean "has UB if you don't
> include external checks", correct? I really don't like that even
> being an option in a type intended to improve error handling.
If we have both narrow and wide, you can use whatever you prefer. I in
particular will use always a narrow contract if I know the preconditions
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk