Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] Exception safety guarantees
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-27 16:59:43
2017-05-27 18:53 GMT+02:00 Peter Dimov via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>:
> Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:
> If they do, you only have a basic guarantee: you can destroy, assign to,
>> or maybe call valueless_by_exception(). Nothing more.
> This is not the basic guarantee. It's one step lower than basic and has no
> name because it deliberately hasn't been named (by Dave Abrahams).
How come? I thought bsic guarantee menas I just should be able to safely
destroy it without UB or resource leaks, and perhaps to reset it. How does
the above not meet these guarantees?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk