Boost logo

Boost :

From: Gregory Colvin (gregory.colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-26 17:59:17

On May 26, 2004, at 4:30 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
> "Andreas Huber" <ah2003_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> To the contrary, I think I
>> have almost proved in my discussion with Dave that exit actions must
>> not
>> fail
> IIUC your almost-proof that they must not fail is based on the
> assumption that they're done with destructors. That would be circular
> reasoning.

As I understood it, the argument was that to make it possible for entry
actions to fail it must be impossible for exit actions to fail. So to
me this design looks like "resource acquisition is initialization", but
I might be missing something.

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