Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [review] Review of Outcome v2 (Fri-19-Jan to Sun-28-Jan, 2018)
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-02-01 00:02:17

On 02/01/18 01:26, Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira via Boost wrote:
> How pushing a "I forgot to do proper error handling" to compile time errors
> becomes "this is just axiomatic belief and helps no-one"?
> During this same review, Andrzej Krzemienski noted an improper exceptions
> handling of exceptions in the swap function:
> 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.
> Should we remember the variant saga maybe[1][2]? These are not isolated
> cases. They keep happening.

It's not the exceptions that made variant difficult. It's *the
possibility of a failure* at certain points in some cases. You would
have the same difficulty defining behavior in these cases with any error
reporting mechanism, exceptions or not.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at