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
> 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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk