David Abrahams wrote:
"Jonathan Turkanis" <technews@kangaroologic.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
"Michael D. Crawford" <crawford@goingware.com> writes:
I *did* know that there are different degrees of exception safety, so I compare thread-safety guarantees to that. When I cover exception safety in a week or so I'll discuss what that means; sometimes for reasons of performance or memory conservation, one must choose not to be completely exception-safe.
Sorry, but that's ridiculous.
At first I interpretted Michael's statement to mean that sometimes you might reasonably choose not to meet even the basic exception-safety guarantee. But maybe by "completely exception-safe" Michael means the "no-throw" guarantee, in which case there may be all sorts of reasons, depending on the circumstances, not to be completely exception-safe, no?
Maybe I was a bit too abrupt, but, no. IMO, nobody who writes "not completely exception safe" as a shorthand for "only provides the basic guarantee" should be writing about exception safety.
I didn't mean to suggest that the terms *should* be used interchangeably. -- Jonathan Turkanis www.kangaroologic.com