From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-17 15:36:17
At 12:47 PM 9/17/2002, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> > 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.
Because the Boost smart pointers are not part of the standard library, they
aren't automatically covered by the standard's clause 17 front matter. It
may have been an attempt to boil all of clause 17 down to a single
sentence. If so, that wasn't a very good idea on my part.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk