From: AlisdairM (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-18 11:18:02
"Rani Sharoni" <rani_sharoni_at_[hidden]> wrote in
news:brshl7$r8m$1_at_[hidden]:
> Why is it important that the shared_ptr(weak_ptr<Y> const & r)
> constructor throws an exception?
> I can't avoid thinking that it can easily affect the exception safety
> of code that uses it and this exception indicates about a bug in many
> cases.
IIUC, the issue occurs when resource the weak_ptr refers to no longer
exists, or at least can no longer be tracked through the weak_ptr.
Given the weak reference has become invalid, what behaviour would you
prefer when trying to make a shared_ptr out of it?
The exception forces you to consider the possibility, and if no-throw
guarantees or exception-specifications are a concern you must explicitly
dead with it. Any alternative would seem to involve some sort of post-
construction test to see if I made a valid shared_ptr. In other words, my
constructor may fail to give me a valid object. This is one of the
specific problems exceptions exist for, signalling a failure to construct.
Once you allow objects to construct with invalid states, the rest of your
code pollutes with state-checks. It is much simpler to code with that
exception up front, and not worry about such issues for the remaining
lifetime of your object.
AlisdairM