Subject: Re: [std-proposals] function at() for span<> that throws exception on out-of-range, like vector and array ::at()
From: Ville Voutilainen (ville.voutilainen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-11-30 09:58:17
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 at 17:44, Bjorn Reese via Std-Proposals
> On 2019-11-30 11:15, Eyal Rozenberg via Std-Proposals wrote:
> > What are the arguments against "at()", other than possibly being redundant?
> That it brings in exceptions, which are disable in many real-time and
> embedded projects.
That's hardly a plausible explanation, because such projects can
simply choose to never call an at().
> I reckon that the most viable approach forward is to introduce a free
> std::at() function, similar to std::get(). This makes it possible to
> have bounds check for types that do not support them, such as C arrays
> or std::span.
For heaven's sake, that brings in ADL, which is hardly an improvement
over a simple member
function that does what other member functions already do.
STD-PROPOSALS list run by herb.sutter at gmail.com
Standard Proposals Archives on Google Groups