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

On 9 October 2013 16:18, Nevin Liber wrote:

On 9 October 2013 01:31, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:

You seem to be completely obsessed by the point that a precondition or

...

invariant violation must always be checked by compiled-away assertions.

You seem completely obsessed to call it a precondition or invariant violation. Why? All you have to do is make it defined behavior in your library; then it isn't a bug and apparently everyone will be happy.

Sigh, that's what I've been suggesting from the start. http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2013/10/206790.php