Boost logo

Boost :

From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-10 16:02:16


Andrey Semashev skrev:
> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>> Hi Fernando,
>>
>> I have some comments on the way optional<T>::swap() is implemented. I
>> looks like this:
>>
>> // optional's swap:
>> // If both are initialized, calls swap(T&, T&). If this swap throws,
>> //both will remain initialized but their values are now unspecified.
>> // If only one is initialized, calls U.reset(*I), THEN I.reset().
>> // If U.reset(*I) throws, both are left UNCHANGED (U is kept
>> //uinitialized and I is never reset)
>> // If both are uninitialized, do nothing (no-throw)
>
> [snip]
>
>> The problem here is that the two first cases do not delegate to the
>> version of swap found by ADL. That only happens in cases where both
>> objects are initialized. This is, AFAICT, a major problem because
>> copy-construction has quite different semantics than swap() when it
>> comes to invalidation of iterators or pointers. It works ok for ints,
>> but creates havoc when using a container with internal memory.
>>
>> I suggest we do something along these lines:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Comments?
>
> Your approach requires the T to be default constructible which is not
> always the case.

Why is this better than the far more expensive copy-construction?

> Besides, to my mind, the current implementation is more
> obvious for the user.

No user expects swap to throw or invalidate iterators or references like
the current implementation does.

-Thorsten


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk