Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-30 09:04:13

Pavol Droba <droba_at_[hidden]> writes:

> For me, this seems rather fine. I have tried to sumarize something similar
> in <>.

The "defintion" of the strong guarantee here is just wrong:

  Some functions can provide the strong exception-safety
  guarantee. That means that following statements are true:

  If an exception is thrown, there are no effects
  other than those of the function

I don't mean to pick on you, Pavol, but I don't understand why this
keeps happening: people seem unsatisfied with my original wording and
make changes that alter the meaning. In fact, the statement that a
function has "no effects other than those of the function" is a
meaningless tautology.

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

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