Andrey Semashev-2 wrote
On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Peter Dimov <
lists@
> wrote:
Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
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)?
I think that am I saying that if an operation on optional<T&> is apt to result in dangling pointers on many popular compilers, the operation should be disabled for all compilers for consistency, not just those that will exhibit the failure. This interface is obviously too dangerous to be of any use and, while it will work on some compilers, its use will not be portable.
It's also possible to make the feature optional, so that it can be enabled by a macro.
On a recent project I did come across this with optional references: we decided to do exactly that: disabled them with optional macro to re-enable them. Mind that optional references are easily replaceable by raw pointers -> yield almost the same syntax as optionals and are plain simple. -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/config-regression-Regression-test-failure... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.