From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-12-04 16:01:02
Vinnie Falco wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 11:42 PM Peter Dimov via Boost
> <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > I don't like this change. A special case for close to zero benefit that
> > changes the semantics of data() to not be unique per instance.
> I don't feel strongly about it either way, but since when is data()
> guaranteed to be unique per instance?
This is a property of the implementation that is no longer true after the
change. It may not have been "guaranteed" but it was true.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk