29 May
2017
29 May
'17
11:03 a.m.
On 28/05/2017 10:46, Niall Douglas wrote:
I would agree. But well, we were outvoted. And that probably means rejection of this library, as the presented library does not implement what the majority want (yet).
Just to clarify the meaning, since I'm not especially fluent in standardese: by "narrow contract" you mean "has UB if you don't include external checks", correct? I really don't like that even being an option in a type intended to improve error handling. If we have both narrow and wide, you can use whatever you prefer. I in
Le 29/05/2017 à 09:23, Gavin Lambert via Boost a écrit : particular will use always a narrow contract if I know the preconditions are satisfied. Vicente