"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Not sure what you expect the behavior to be in the face of an
>> exception, but I can't see why you say that neither named guarantee
>> applies here.
>
> The behavior, at least in shared_ptr's case, is that the pointer is deleted,
> but there are no other effects, i.e. px is left unchanged.
Then for the whole expression, "px.reset(new X)", it's the strong
guarantee.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
