From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-07-03 17:00:52
Scott McMurray wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 10:40, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Beman Dawes wrote:
>>> The remove(p) function is currently specified to return a bool with a
>>> value of exist(p) before the post-condition is established. The
>>> post-condition is !exists(p).
>> You can't really guarantee that, can you? Can't some other process
>> sneak in and re-create p before remove returns?
> There's a blanket "Effects and Postconditions not guaranteed in the
> presence of race-conditions" in effect for the whole library:
Yeah, I know that. My point is, with such a clause in place, what point
is there in returning the error code in the first place?
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com