Re: [boost] Variant2 review

Subject: Re: [boost] Variant2 review
From: Gavin Lambert (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-04-09 02:58:04

On 9/04/2019 13:40, Robert Ramey wrote:
>> Why not use #ifndef JUNIOR_DEVS_DONT_TOUCH or something similarly 
>> never defined (and so never disabling the check) but expressing your 
>> real intent?
> -1

I don't particularly agree with that either, but that's what Niall said 
was the real reason for the #ifdef.  I did paraphrase, of course.

FWIW though I don't think it was intended as a disparagement of junior 
developers in particular.  It's easy enough for anyone, no matter how 
junior or senior, to trip over an assumption in the code -- and in that 
case it's best if the assumption is declared in a fashion that the 
compiler can alert you about, so that you can decide if the violation 
was intentional or not and correct related code accordingly if needed.

> a) I think you're doing it basically right
> b) It's a mistake to characterize this iast "protection against other 
> developers. Actually it could be considered offensive to other 
> developers.  We all need to do our part for creating a safe space for 
> those other developers.
> c) It's better to see it as using the compiler to explicity enforce type 
> requirements in order to get correct code.

It's better to have the static_asserts without any #if at all.  (Unless, 
as I said, there's a fundamental requirement for it, eg. with types 
changing size in debug builds.)