Re: std::copy implementation standard conforming?

From:

Carl Barron <cbarron413@adelphia.net>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++.moderated

Date:

Sat, 23 Jun 2007 04:06:32 CST

Message-ID:

<230620070442000705%cbarron413@adelphia.net>

In article <C2A1F7D1.1D6C%greghe@pacbell.net>, Greg Herlihy
<greghe@pacbell.net> wrote:

The entire reason for enabling "checked" routines in the first place - is to
find bugs (especially those that cause undefined behavior) in a C++ program.
Therefore, it makes little sense that once a checked routine does expose a
bug in the user program, to write code to bypass the checked routine - as if
concealing the bug somehow fixes it. (Moreover, checked routines are usually
enabled only in debugging builds anyway).

So the only sensible thing to do, in this situation (or any other situation
in which a program's undefined behavior has been made evident) - is not to
conceal or dispute the existence of the error - but to fix it.

    there is no undefined behavior in the OP's struct and creation
function. No access beyound the runtime bounds of the arrray are
not breached.

    The fix is to remove the non-standard copy from namespace std and
provide it in a different namespace, along with a generic copy that
either mimics or forwards to std::copy. Then the user easily can
decide if he wants or needs this additional checking. This library
implementation prevents that choice without casting,
   The fix of the OP's code without modifying the library is to cast
so that the proper overload is chosen.

--
      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]