Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] Change semantics on UB from peer review agreed semantics?
From: Dominique Devienne (ddevienne_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-09-12 09:28:40
On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:07 AM Niall Douglas via Boost <
> What is boost-dev's opinion on this proposed change in semantics?
I'll weigh in even though we're not asking me, since I'm more boost-users
but from your email alone, I'd choose failure-to-compile anytime. My
understanding of UB
is that it exists to give leeway to compiler writers for performance
reasons, and what you
describe doesn't seem performance related at all, so why choose UB? --DD
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk