"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote in message news:uy8ll2rhr.fsf@boost-consulting.com... | Pavol Droba <droba@topmail.sk> writes: | | > Now I see, that plain formulation "they provide strong exception guarantee" | > is enough. And that is exactly the point I wanted to get to. | | I strongly believe that the language "if an exception is thrown there | are no effects" is better than talking about the strong guarantee, | because eventually you get into variations like these: | | > "If an exception is thrown, there are no effects other than those | > of <user-supplied operation>" | > | > and | > | > "If an exception is thrown other than by <user-supplied operation>, | > there are no effects" | | and the basic language used is the same. I don't quite see that. I believe a concise terminology is better than plain laguage. The plain language can be used to explain the term, but moving awau from a terminology is a step in the wrong direction. So I would support "basic guarantee", "strong guarantee" and "nothrow guarantee" terms. br Thorsten