From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > 004501c2c6f8$970c7400$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:004501c2c6f8$970c7400$1d00a8c0@pdimov2... > >> From: "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> [...] > >> Nope, but I want my sink strongly exception safe; the pointer should > >> be deleted when a policy constructor throws. > > BTW, this is also not the "strong guarantee" (I dunno, maybe people > mean something else by "strongly exception safe" -- is there a > definition somewhere?)
Can't get away with colloquialisms. Yep, I am very wrong if the sink is smart_ptr::smart_ptr. Strong guarantee here means do-nothing, which is exactly what the current smart_ptr does, leak and all. I am less wrong if the sink is the expression smart_ptr<> px(new X); although this can give the strong guarantee only if "delete new X" has no observable side effects; so "basic guarantee" is probably more precise. And I'm even less wrong if the sink is px.reset(new X); since "basic guarantee" here says nothing about px after the exception. The exception safety of this construct has no name, it's somewhere between basic and strong. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
