Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: svn commit: r675044 - in /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x:
 include/rw/_tuple.h include/tuple tests/utilities/20.tuple.cnstr.cpp
 tests/utilities/20.tuple.creation.cpp tests/utilities/20.tuple.h
 tests/utilities/20.tuple.helpers.cpp
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 12:27:37 -0600
Message-ID: 
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A4901E0FC1C@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
Thread-Topic: svn commit: r675044 - in /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x:
 include/rw/_tuple.h include/tuple tests/utilities/20.tuple.cnstr.cpp
 tests/utilities/20.tuple.creation.cpp tests/utilities/20.tuple.h
 tests/utilities/20.tuple.helpers.cpp
Thread-Index: AcjhUHjBx2jJV/psQR+A5lb/aX/PGwAAbPOAACScKSAAAvmE4A==
References: <20080708231336.C38872388A22@eris.apache.org>
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A4901E0FC1B@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
 <CFFDD219128FD94FB4F92B99F52D0A4901DB0638@exchmail01.Blue.Roguewave.Com>
From: "Travis Vitek" <Travis.Vitek@roguewave.com>
To: <dev@stdcxx.apache.org>

=20

Eric Lemings wrote:
>
>> Travis Vitek wrote:
>>
>> >Modified:=20
>stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/tests/utilities/20.tuple.creation.cpp
>...
>> >+    rw_assert (0 =3D=3D std::strcmp (s, "string"), __FILE__, =
__LINE__,
>> >+               "s =3D=3D \"string\", got false, expected true");
>>=20
>> The tuple is holding the original pointer (not a copy), so I=20
>think you
>> can check the actual pointer here.
>
>True.  But if that assumption became invalid for whatever reason, the
>code above would still work.
>
>Assumptions are bad.  Robustness is good.  :)

As I see it, the tuple implementation is required to hold a copy of an
object of the specified type (const char* in this case). If you don't
verify the value held is indeed a copy, you are not actually verifying
the requirements. This is wrong, and wrong is much worse than bad. :)

>
>Brad.
>