Re: [boost] [safe_numerics] One more review

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 9:23 AM Robert Ramey via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:

On 3/11/17 7:52 AM, Steven Watanabe via Boost wrote:

...

AMDG

On 03/11/2017 02:00 AM, Antony Polukhin via Boost wrote:

...

I'd like to see an additional statefull ExceptionPolicy that remembers that an UB was triggered, but does not throw at all. Here's how it could be used:

This also requires an extra function to combine two ExceptionPolicies for binary operators. You'll run into problems with comparison operators, though, as a bool can't hold an ExceptionPolicy.

Couldn't the addressed by a variation of the "ignore exception" policy which is meant to just return?

A simple extension to log such errors could be crafted from this idea and would make a great example on how to make one's own exception policy.

What is missing from this idea?

The solution I favor is for `std::common_type` to be specialized for allowed combinations. For example, `std::common_type_t`, would be `ExceptionPolicy` and `std::common_type_t` would be `T`. Thus, safer types would "win out" over less safe types.

...

In Christ, Steven Watanabe

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes:

http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

...

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost