Dear Mario,

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

Best Wishes,

JeanHeyd

On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 1:47 PM Marcin Jaczewski via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> 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@lists.isocpp.org> napisał(a):
>
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2020 at 20:05, Tony V E <tvaneerd@gmail.com> 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@lists.isocpp.org
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals

--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals