The problem with this is that the usage of safe<int> changes the meaning
of the program.
int i; // i not initialized
.... // program has weird behavior
In this particular case, the fact that the program was relying on UB means
that the program had no meaning at all. So it adds a meaning maybe :)
However I see your point ; you expect people to do something like:
#ifdef DEBUG
typedef safe<int> my_int;
#else
typedef int my_int;
#endif
But, you could instead market the following usage:
#ifdef DEBUG
typedef safe my_int;
#else
typedef safe my_int;
#endif
IMHO, it makes no sense to design your library to allow users *not* using
it.
If it is possible to disable some or all the runtime checks, the users has
no excuse to just switch to builtin types. Moreover, the incentive to
switch *from* builtin types is higher, as users can choose to do it
gradually: First all our integers will be initialized and compile-time
checked,
then we can add runtime checks in debug mode, and finally, we can bench the
whole thing with the runtime checks in release builds.
My 2 cents,
