2015-01-21 21:56 GMT+01:00 Peter Dimov <lists@pdimov.com>:
Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
2015-01-21 16:41 GMT+01:00 Peter Dimov <lists@pdimov.com>:
On the doc page, you state that these bugs are present in all MSVC > versions, but on the tests page, I only see one failure, with msvc-10.0, > everything else is green (or, in some cases, missing.)
You are right. I need to check if I didn't loose some tests. But back to my original request, did what I say makes sense?
I'd like to know more about what is failing where before I venture an opinion about your original request.
An optional<T&> that fails silently for certain T's in a quite insidious way on a wide array of popular compilers, including all versions of MSVC, should perhaps be disabled for those T's outright, instead of the failures being marked. Users do not consult the markup when using optional<> and even if they did, optional<int const&> is most likely to occur in generic code, not on its own. This will result in some very hard to track bugs.
Are you saying that on a compiler where an operation on optional<T&> might give wrong run-time result, the operation should be disabled (render a compile-time error)? If so, I agree, and intend to do it at some point. But even then I should indicate somehow in regression tests that I expect different results in gcc and in msvc. Regards, &rzej