22 Nov
2008
22 Nov
'08
6:25 p.m.
on Sat Nov 22 2008, "Dave Handley" <dave-AT-dah.me.uk> wrote:
My guess is that they're Thorsten's attempt to avoid silent breakage. Whether or not the attempt was well-executed is another matter, but I can understand why he might have done it: he realized that the original design was wrong, and rather than silently letting people get away with using it in ways that were to become illegal, he detected the newly-illegal usage in the only way possible, at runtime.
Newly illegal usage should always be documented as such - and in this instance I'm not convinced it was.
It should be easy enough to verify one way or another. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com