On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 2:44 PM JeanHeyd Meneide via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Dear Mario,
>
> The free function will probably be your best bet. I'm sorry for the
> pain we cause you down the line.
>

Pain is too big a of word ;-) This is fun.

Take care.


> Best Wishes,
> JeanHeyd
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 1:47 PM Marcin Jaczewski via Std-Proposals <
> std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Btw why `at` need at all `<string>` header? Or even `<exception>`?
>>
>> Could standard require it call global function `void
>> throw_out_bound_exception() noexcept(false);` that take only `const
>> char*`?
>>
>> This will solve all header pollution without changing functionality a
>> bit. This could be used by end user too to reduce need to include
>> multiple headers to throw some standard exceptions.
>> You should pay only for things that you REALLY need.
>>
>>
>> niedz., 19 kwi 2020 o 19:07 Ville Voutilainen via Std-Proposals
>> <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):
>> >
>> > On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 at 20:05, Tony V E <tvaneerd_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > If someone wrote a paper for span::at, and explained away all the
>> "excuses" for not having it (ie header dependencies, etc), I might vote for
>> it.
>> > > Consistency is a strong argument for any API decision.
>> > >
>> > > Or maybe it was discussed and voted already and best not to rehash?
>> >
>> > An uphill battle. Sun Tzu told me not to do that. We have better
>> > things to do. Just wrap it and move on.
>> > --
>> > Std-Proposals mailing list
>> > Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>> > https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>> --
>> Std-Proposals mailing list
>> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>>
> --
> Std-Proposals mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>