From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-17 11:47:27
From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> > Also, smart_ptr.htm says that
> > "The only exception ever thrown by functions which do throw (assuming T
> > meets the common requirements) is std::bad_alloc, and that is thrown
> > functions which are explicitly documented as possibly throwing
> > std::bad_alloc."
> > but this is too strict. For instance, in some implementations the
> > constructor can fail if it cannot create the mutex that protects the
> > reference count.
> > Comments? Rationale for the original text?
> All I can say was that it was true with the original non-threadsafe
> shared_ptr design.
Yes, I know that, it's just that the standard library practice is to not
enumerate the possible exceptions. There might have been a particular reason
for documenting things that way for smart_ptr.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk