Boost logo

Boost :

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 <>.
> 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:




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