Subject: Re: [boost] [outcome] comments on Regular ops
From: Niall Douglas (s_sourceforge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-01-22 14:53:36
> My recommendation would be not to provide comparison operators if either
> `T` or `EC` does not provide them.
Agreed. Logged to https://github.com/ned14/outcome/issues/107
> The trick with catch-reswap-rethrow assumes that `T` is more likely to
> throw while swapping/moving than `EC`, but it might be quite the opposite.
> Also, it is possible that while reswapping, another exception will be
> thrown. In general, you cannot guarantee the roll-back, so maybe it would
> be cleaner for everyone if you just declared that upon throw from swap, one
> cannot rely on the state of `result`: it should be reset or destroyed.
So, don't bother attempting to restore a valid state at all?
Does everybody else agree?
> Another problem is that in the noexcept() clause you are mentioning
> is_nothrow_swappable<value_type> and is_nothrow_swappable<error_type>, but
> in the implementation you might be using move constructors rather than
> swaps. This means that for types that do not throw in swap but throw in
> move constructor (like std::list), a throw from move constructor will cause
> a call to `std::terminate`. See live example here:
Surely if std::is_nothrow_swappable tells lies, it is only right that
that equals std::terminate? In other words, if the STL traits tell me
that `swap(A, B)` does not throw, and then it throws because it's
implemented with move constructors, that's surely not my problem?
> Plus, documentation does not mention that the swap provides only a basic
Agreed. Logged to https://github.com/ned14/outcome/issues/108.
Thanks for the feedback!
-- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/