[boost] Re: The wonders of shared_ptr

From: Rani Sharoni (rani_sharoni_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-12 09:04:05

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Rani Sharoni wrote:
> [...]
>> Sorry but I personally can't program with lock that might fail and
>> handle the failure. This will definitely change the non failure
>> guarantee of many functions/scopes such as cleanup functions and
>> non-mutating functions. Sure that there are cases in which the lock
>> will not change the failure guaranty.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3FA61F96.223FDE85%40web.de
>
> [...]
>>> shared_ptr, i.e. a programming error.
>>
>> I'm surprised to see  [... "to throw or not to throw" ...]
>
> He he. (Never mind ;-) )
>
I have things in my mind but I suggest that we will continue this discussion
in more appropriate place. I'm sure that Dave and Peter will not be offended
(probably on the contrary) especially since my original intention was
reviewing Peter's fine paper.

See you soon on comp.programming.threads,
Rani