From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-29 12:56:55
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message news:uy8ll2rhr.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
| Pavol Droba <droba_at_[hidden]> writes:
| > Now I see, that plain formulation "they provide strong exception guarantee"
| > is enough. And that is exactly the point I wanted to get to.
| I strongly believe that the language "if an exception is thrown there
| are no effects" is better than talking about the strong guarantee,
| because eventually you get into variations like these:
| > "If an exception is thrown, there are no effects other than those
| > of <user-supplied operation>"
| > and
| > "If an exception is thrown other than by <user-supplied operation>,
| > there are no effects"
| and the basic language used is the same.
I don't quite see that. I believe a concise terminology is better than plain laguage. The plain language can be
used to explain the term, but moving awau from a terminology is a step in the wrong direction. So
I would support "basic guarantee", "strong guarantee" and "nothrow guarantee" terms.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk