From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-22 10:36:25
"Pavol Droba" <droba_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> I haven't done a proper exception safety inspection of the lib. But as far
> as I understand the concepts in this document, the library satisfies (or
> very close to) the "basic" exception guarantie. If somebody with an
> this can give me a hand, I'll be very glad.
> Question is, if there is a requirement, that the "strong" guarantie should
> Obviosly this only applies to mutating algorithms and it is not fulfilled.
For any _copy algorithm I could imagine the strong guarantee by making a
copy and then
running the mutating algorithm on the copy. I don't no if your
implementation can somehow do the
job faster otherwise.
> Such a guarantie could bring a heavy degradation of performance.
really? I would expect most mutable versions to give the nothrow guarantee
eg. trim() would
never cause a reallocation, but merely erase a few elements (using nothrow
I might have overlooked something.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk