From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-03 16:58:25
"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> "Michael D. Crawford" <crawford_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>> I *did* know that there are different degrees of exception safety,
>>> so I compare thread-safety guarantees to that. When I cover
>>> exception safety in a week or so I'll discuss what that means;
>>> sometimes for reasons of performance or memory conservation, one
>>> must choose not to be completely exception-safe.
>> Sorry, but that's ridiculous.
> At first I interpretted Michael's statement to mean that sometimes
> you might reasonably choose not to meet even the basic
> exception-safety guarantee. But maybe by "completely exception-safe"
> Michael means the "no-throw" guarantee, in which case there may be
> all sorts of reasons, depending on the circumstances, not to be
> completely exception-safe, no?
Maybe I was a bit too abrupt, but, no. IMO, nobody who writes "not
completely exception safe" as a shorthand for "only provides the basic
guarantee" should be writing about exception safety.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk