Re: [boost] move semantics

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-06 17:25:42

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Colvin" <gcolvin_at_[hidden]>
> >
> > So, I can't force you to say "basic guarantee", but I can ask nicely.
Pretty
> > please?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
>
> Or don't say anything?  When we rewrote your proposal in standardese
> we never mention the basic guarantee, just because it is so basic.
> Unless a construct specifically requires its users not to throw there
> is no excuse for undefined behavior when they do.

True, that language is good for the standard, which is trying to be ascetic
and minimal. But when we talk about exception-safety among ourselves it's
nice to have a term for "this function doesn't give the strong guarantee"
which doesn't sound like it means "this function abrogates all
responsibility and leaves you high and dry in case of an exception". And
since some people do write code in practice which ignores exception-safety,
it's an important distinction to make.

-Dave