Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] Second high level summary of review feedback accepted so far
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-31 20:08:06
Le 31/05/2017 Ã 14:04, Niall Douglas via Boost a Ã©crit :
> On 30/05/2017 22:28, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>> Le 30/05/2017 Ã 21:36, Niall Douglas via Boost a Ã©crit :
>>> 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++
>> 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.
What if I want both?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk