Re: [boost] Looking for thoughts on a new smart pointer: shared_ptr_nonnull

On 10-10-2013 20:56, Nevin Liber wrote:

On 10 October 2013 12:09, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:

...

I guess it's because I view the precondition as the requirement for correct execution. It's the same for both functions. They differ in how they respond to an incorrect argument. UB vs. an exception.

That's you.

The standard is quite clear on this: n3690 23.2.4p17: "The member function at() provides bounds-checked access to container elements. at() throws out_of_-range if n >= a.size()."

Right. Different words. Same meaning. You cut out the quote from the standard that said: ""17.6.4.11 Requires paragraph [res.on.required] Violation of the preconditions specified in a function’s Requires: paragraph results in undefined behavior unless the function’s Throws: paragraph specifies throwing an exception when the precondition is violated."

Not fitting your mental model is not a bug in the standard...

Nevin, I think it's pointless to continue this discussion. I know your view, you know mine. kind regards -Thorsten