Subject: Re: [boost] Looking for thoughts on a new smart pointer: shared_ptr_nonnull
From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-03 11:35:18
On 3 October 2013 16:04, Matt Calabrese <rivorus_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> The point is, even if you happen to throw in a particular implementation,
> if the precondition is such that the constructor cannot take a null
> pointer, then the throwing behavior is never to be relied upon by the user
> anyway.
It shouldn't be a pre-condition. The intent of the class is to
guarantee that it is never null, it shouldn't assume that users are
smart enough to get that right, because we really aren't.