Hi. If you can tell me what part confused you I'll clarify it. There's
no runtime cost as this is a compile time check. If you're talking
about longer compile times then no it shouldn't slow the compiler
down. In my own implementation I measured no compile time slowdowns


On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 12:28 PM Phil <std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Hello Levo,
>
> please allow me to quote from Nicolai Josuttis‘ „The C++ Standard Library - Second Edition: A Tutorial and Reference [6.12.1 Error Handling]“: The design goal of the STL was best performance rather than highest security. […] If you prefer safety over speed, you can still get it, either by adding wrappers or by using special versions of the STL.
>
> So, I do not see this proposal making it into the C++ standard library - but that‘s just my very personal thought on it.
>
> KR
> Chilippso
>
> > Am 28.07.2023 um 04:04 schrieb Levo DeLellis via Std-Discussion <std-discussion_at_[hidden]>:
> >
> > 
> > Hi all. Last week I attended the CppNorth conference. I didn't realize there was much interest in safety with C++. I've been implementing a compiler that is slowly becoming memory safe so I thought maybe I should submit a series of proposals since I'm already familiar with potential pitfalls, solutions and implementation.
> >
> > Here's a basic proposal attached, it's a small step towards memory safety. Here I talk about opt-ing into a container that has bounds checking at compile time. If there's any interest in having this in the standard I'd be happy to write more about this and additional proposals going toward memory safety
> >
> > <bounds_draft.txt>
> > --
> > Std-Discussion mailing list
> > Std-Discussion_at_[hidden]
> > https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion