On Fri, Jul 30, 2004 at 07:04:13AM -0700, David Abrahams wrote:
Pavol Droba <droba@topmail.sk> writes:
For me, this seems rather fine. I have tried to sumarize something similar in <http://tinyurl.com/3wgvu>.
The "defintion" of the strong guarantee here is just wrong:
Some functions can provide the strong exception-safety guarantee. That means that following statements are true:
If an exception is thrown, there are no effects other than those of the function ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't mean to pick on you, Pavol, but I don't understand why this keeps happening: people seem unsatisfied with my original wording and make changes that alter the meaning. In fact, the statement that a function has "no effects other than those of the function" is a meaningless tautology.
I don't want to argue, since little bit lost in the discussion. The wording, that can be seen in the documentation, is my attempt to sumarize the discussion that was happening before I left to holidays. During the time I was away, the discussion continued and you have suggested more precise wording. Actualy I will be more then happy to copy-paste a paragraph rather than to reinvent a wheel (most likely broken) on my own. So will it be ok if I copy your definition from here: <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/105915> ? Regards, Pavol