Marc Mutz wrote:
> But the discussions about move ctors that throw aren't even about
> bad_alloc. They are about assertion exceptions.
How is a move constructor an appropriate place for a sanity check? The only
way the moved object can be invalid is if the original object was already
invalid. So the sanity check should have been in an appropriate place to
prevent the original object from becoming invalid in the first place. Any
properly implemented move satisfies the invariant that the moved object
satisfies resp. violates exactly the same invariants than the original one.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
