Re: [boost] a safe integer library

2015-12-17 9:12 GMT+01:00 Robert Ramey : I do have a policy to ignore errors. But I haven't tested it. I'm

thinking I should eliminate it as it would defeat the whole purpose of the library.

I can see value in such policy. In the e documentation, in section "Eliminate Runtime Cost" ( https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/robertramey...) you show a great application of the library. If I am interested in improving performance still, I would change the policy form "throw upon overflow" to "ignore overflow", in hope that the later skips the check altogether. Then, using type safe_signed_range; Is still better than just `int` First, it is distinct type than `int`. Secong, even if the compiler does not help me, I am sending a clear message to other programmers: "this variable is expected to hold a value within range, the person responsible is the one that assigns the value: no-one else needs to check it. Then I can only swap the policies in debug versus release modes.