El 15/06/2012 19:41, Mathias Gaunard escribió:
On 15/06/2012 18:02, Dave Abrahams wrote:
Most people don't know what "most objects" are like :-)
The copy and swap idiom is usually what's used for non-containers.
It doesn't seem a good idea to introduce a new function overloading mechanism to drop that would always void this guarantee.
I don't understand this sentence.
Some words were left when I was rewriting it.
It doesn't seem a good idea to introduce a new function overloading mechanism that would always void this guarantee.
I agree that is not desirable to weaken strong exception guarantees for objects because of the syntax. However there is an alternative syntax explained in: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/231570 that does not void this guarantee as already constructed parameters are passed like references. I don't think this should surprise the programmer: //A & B constructed, c & d reused C c(...); D d(...); [A a, B b] -> int ret = produce_abcd(a, b, c, d); Best, Ion