From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-03 19:56:43
David Abrahams wrote:
> "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.
I didn't mean to suggest that the terms *should* be used interchangeably.
-- Jonathan Turkanis www.kangaroologic.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk