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 20:57:40
Le 31/05/2017 Ã 22:45, Niall Douglas via Boost a Ã©crit :
> On 31/05/2017 21:08, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
>> 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:
>>>> 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?
> You can't have a statically checked function which is always legal to
> call. The static analyser couldn't claim calling it to be suspicious.
Sorry, I'm tired to try to explain you the advantages of having both
functions one with wide and and the other with narrow contract.
The narrow function is not always legal to cal as it has a narrow contract.
Hopping someone else could have more chance than me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk