Comments inlined: <snip>
Furthermore, the following code changes have occured:
boost::iterator_range<std::vector<int>::const_iterator> r; bool b1 = r.is_singular(); // returns true in 1.34 and debug 1.35. Returns false in release 1.35
If singular means what I think it does(**) I don't think such a function should exist in the public interface. There is no test for a singular pointer or its moral equivalent, an uninitialized int.
(**) well, probably with these kinds of fluctuations in semantics the meaning was never really well-understood by its author
Look at this code (copied directly from boost::iterator_range 1.37):
bool is_singular() const { #ifndef NDEBUG return singular; #else return false; #endif }
Taken from the iterator_range class. IMHO this is broken,
I think I'll probably agree with you, but I'd like it in general if statements are accompanied by some rationale. From here I can't be sure _why_ you think it's broken.
Sorry if this wasn't clear - I patched in the code to follow my description of why I thought it was broken - debug and release doing something completely different.
the functionality changes between debug and release in 1.35,
Yeah, that's problematic. Such changes should usually be restricted to changes in the expression of undefined behavior.
as well as changing from 1.34 to 1.35. The assertions occur in virtually all the interface functions.
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. Dave