Re: Is there any standard/guarantees for exception safety in STL operations?

From:

"Bo Persson" <bop@gmb.dk>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.c++.moderated

Date:

Fri, 30 Jul 2010 12:54:10 CST

Message-ID:

<8bga00FkcgU1@mid.individual.net>

Dragan Milenkovic wrote:

On 07/30/2010 02:26 AM, nmm1@cam.ac.uk wrote:

In article<i2sn4t$dc6$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
Dragan Milenkovic<dragan@plusplus.rs> wrote:

[snip]

I already asked in another post... Why would you put in a vector
something that can throw on copy or move? There are other types
of containers that would seem more appropriate. There is also
shared_ptr or at least a pointer (to a well managed object).

The principle of orthogonality means that a container should be
capable of storing any objects that meet its constraints.

This I agree. I do feel uneasy, like there is a hole in
the specification of std::vector. Me likes things clean
and strictly defined, yes. Maybe, they should have just
banned objects that throw on copy/move.

But they didn't want to do that, just because some type can throw once
in a million years.

It is still allowed to put these objects in a vector, but perhaps you
should avoid multi-object inserts in the middle of the vector, at
times when the risc of an exception is high. :-)

Or perhaps the application can live with the "consistent but unknown
state" of the vector, by discarding it and letting the higher level
operation fail? Youtube video not loading, please try again!

Bo Persson

--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]