Boost logo

Boost :

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.)

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at