Re: [boost] [outcome] Second high level summary of review feedback accepted so far

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] Second high level summary of review feedback accepted so far
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-31 12:04:26

On 30/05/2017 22:28, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> Le 30/05/2017 à 21:36, Niall Douglas via Boost a écrit :
>> I intend to put UB "raw" observers on the runtime checked editions,
>> maybe using the form Peter suggested. But I am deeply opposed to having
>> short-to-type-out observers like operator*() do UB unless the type's
>> name loudly declares "I am an unsafe type".
>>
>>
>>
> :(
> 
> I don't understand. Aren't we on a C++ forum? on the review of a C++
> library?
> 
> Do we want to banish narrow contract in this library as if this kind of
> access was the leprose?

People have the statically checked varieties available to them if they
want narrow contracts.

Niall

-- 
ned Productions Limited Consulting
http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/