From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-16 08:29:37
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Joe Gottman" <jgottman_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> I disagree. This may ensure the basic exception-safety
>> guarantee, but most code that uses optional<T> will use
>> T::operator=() at some point or other. So if T::operator=() is not
> Whoa, here we go again! You seem to be assuming
> basic exception-safety guarantee == "not exception-safe."
> That's just not true for any reasonable definition of
No, he isn't assuming that. "Not exception safe" == "does not provide basic"
in the above paragraph. Fernando's goal, IIUC, was to make
optional<T>::operator= provide the basic guarantee even when T::operator=
does not. We are arguing that this is not necessary and that
optional<T>::operator= should just mirror the exception safety guarantee of
T::operator= and T::T( T const & ).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk