Re: [Boost-users] [ublas] warning on VC9 about checked iterators

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [ublas] warning on VC9 about checked iterators
From: Peter Barker (newbarker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-25 17:56:38

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Thomas Klimpel
<Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Peter Barker wrote:
>> Should I compile with -D_SCL_SECURE_NO_WARNINGS?
>
> You could, if you want.
>
>
>> Is there a fix coming for ublas?
>
> Nothing is broken, so how should it be fixed?
> By the way, there is a special mailing list for ublas, just in case you really want that something in ublas gets "fixed".
>
>
>> What do others do?
>
> Ignore this strange "safe-STL" stuff? Arbitrarily declaring certain STL functions as "unsafe" because certain types of errors cannot be detected at runtime doesn't make much sense to me. What should be safe about detecting errors at runtime? Is it really safe, if your program crashes because you wrote "c.begin()+i-1" instead of "c.begin()+(i-1)"? But I admit that you can switch the checks of before you ship your product, and running your regression tests with safe-STL enabled may actually show you some "possible" issues of your code.
>
>
> Regards,
> Thomas

Thomas,

Thanks for your reply. Today's the first time I've encountered these
checked iterators so apologies for being a bit "green" about them.
I'll probably suppress/ignore them then.

Good to learn there's a ublas mailing list - I'll join that now.

Regards,

Pete