Re: [boost] [outcome] Change semantics on UB from peer review agreed semantics?

Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] Change semantics on UB from peer review agreed semantics?
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-09-12 15:09:33

AMDG

On 09/12/2018 03:28 AM, Dominique Devienne via Boost wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 10:07 AM Niall Douglas via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
>> 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
> than boost-dev,
> 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
> 

  What Niall's message fails to make clear is that
the actual choice is between UB and throwing an
exception.  The compiler error is only to require
the user to make an explicit choice between the
two instead of letting the library choose.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe