Re: [boost] Re: Exception safety guarantie

From: Pavol Droba (droba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-30 10:29:02

On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:04:13AM -0700, David Abrahams wrote:
> Pavol Droba <droba_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 
> > For me, this seems rather fine. I have tried to sumarize something similar
> > in <http://tinyurl.com/3wgvu>.
> 
> 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.
> 

I don't want to argue, since little bit lost in the discussion. The wording, that 
can be seen in the documentation, is my attempt to sumarize the discussion that was
happening before I left to holidays. 

During the time I was away, the discussion continued and you have suggested more precise 
wording. Actualy I will be more then happy to copy-paste a paragraph rather than to 
reinvent a wheel (most likely broken) on my own.

So will it be ok if I copy your definition from here:
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/105915>

?

Regards,

Pavol