From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-29 10:07:21
From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> > And I'm even less wrong if the sink is
> >
> > px.reset(new X);
> >
> > since "basic guarantee" here says nothing about px after the exception.
The
> > exception safety of this construct has no name, it's somewhere between
basic
> > and strong.
>
> Not sure what you expect the behavior to be in the face of an
> exception, but I can't see why you say that neither named guarantee
> applies here.
The behavior, at least in shared_ptr's case, is that the pointer is deleted,
but there are no other effects, i.e. px is left unchanged.