From: AlisdairM (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-18 11:18:02
"Rani Sharoni" <rani_sharoni_at_[hidden]> wrote in
> Why is it important that the shared_ptr(weak_ptr<Y> const & r)
> constructor throws an exception?
> I can't avoid thinking that it can easily affect the exception safety
> of code that uses it and this exception indicates about a bug in many
IIUC, the issue occurs when resource the weak_ptr refers to no longer
exists, or at least can no longer be tracked through the weak_ptr.
Given the weak reference has become invalid, what behaviour would you
prefer when trying to make a shared_ptr out of it?
The exception forces you to consider the possibility, and if no-throw
guarantees or exception-specifications are a concern you must explicitly
dead with it. Any alternative would seem to involve some sort of post-
construction test to see if I made a valid shared_ptr. In other words, my
constructor may fail to give me a valid object. This is one of the
specific problems exceptions exist for, signalling a failure to construct.
Once you allow objects to construct with invalid states, the rest of your
code pollutes with state-checks. It is much simpler to code with that
exception up front, and not worry about such issues for the remaining
lifetime of your object.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk