From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-15 23:10:05
"Joe Gottman" <jgottman_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
> I disagree. This may ensure the basic exception-safety guarantee, but
> most code that uses optional<T> will use T::operator=() at some point or
> other. So if T::operator=() is not exception-safe
Whoa, here we go again! You seem to be assuming
basic exception-safety guarantee == "not exception-safe."
That's just not true for any reasonable definition of
"exception-safe."
Or am I misunderstanding you?
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com