Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-09 09:06:03

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>>> ... and never actually do a reset, to begin with.
>> This is known and expected. reset() is assumed to give the basic
>> guarantee.
> That makes no sense to me.

Heh. I don't care. Most of what you post makes no sense, you still expect us
to parse it. Look it up.

>> If the reset() attempt fails, the fallback is that the pointer will
>> be destroyed later, when all weak pointers die.
> And what if throws later as well?

What if _what_ throws? The destructor? Destructors never throw. :-)

>> The problem of course
>> only arises when reset() can throw, and is a good illustration why
>> it should be nothrow, which shared_ptr::reset() is.
> Same logic also applies to "p_.reset();"

That makes no sense to me. :-)

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at