Fred Bertsch wrote: ...
After the long debate about RAII I don't know if this solution would be accepted by boost members or only compile-time configuration is accepted.
...
Ion is proposing a solution that solves many of the problems with a two stage construction process. It is still possible to use the constructors with std::no_throw and get an invalid state. I shouldn't
My vote would be to only have the RAII type. My second would be that they be separate types in separate headers so that users of the properly designed RAII type not be concerned with the sins of the two-phase type. :) And of course the two-phase type should come with the appropriate warning labels, and be more difficult to find.
comment on the no-exceptions, embedded world that Ion is hoping to placate with his strategy, but in the world where exceptions are possible, it should be easy to tell that you're tripping over something nasty when you pass std::no_throw into a constructor. It seems to me that this should be good enough even if it's not ideal.
I concur with Dave Abrahams' reasoning here. I work in an evironment of primarily C programmers who venture into C++ now and then. I'd prefer to have them come to me and ask how to add an RAII shmem data member and initialize it. Rather than wade through their code trying to fix some totally unrelated problem, just to see they have fallen prey to two-phase initialization issues. Jeff Flinn