Re: [boost] move semantics

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-06 18:28:20

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Colvin" <gcolvin_at_[hidden]>

> I understand.  It just seems that "all functions give the basic guarantee
> unless otherwise specified" is just a subset of "no functions have
> undefined behavior unless otherwise specified".  But we don't have, or
> seem to need, a name for the latter.  We just assume that an author must
> specify the requirements for defined behavior.  A requirement that an
> operation not throw is just such a requirement, and I'd like for that to
> become so obvious that we don't need a special name for it.

Me, too. Although we're not quite to that point yet, I'm very pleased to see
that since we started our work on it, the culture of understanding around
exception-safety has changed dramatically, and for the better.

-Dave