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?