|
|
发表于 2005-7-7 23:47:18
|
显示全部楼层
Item 8~17是同一个专题Writing Exception-Safe Code
Item 17是讨论"Is the C++ standard library exception-safe?"
下面是讨论的全部。
Exception Safety and the Standard Library
Are the standard library containers exception-safe and exception-neutral? The short answer is: Yes.[14]
[14] Here, I'm focusing my attention on the containers and iterators portion of the standard library. Other parts of the library, such as iostreams and facets, are specified to provide at least the basic exception-safety guarantee.
All iterators returned from standard containers are exception-safe and can be copied without throwing an exception.
All standard containers must implement the basic guarantee for all operations: They are always destructible, and they are always in a consistent (if not predictable) state even in the presence of exceptions.
To make this possible, certain important functions are required to implement the nothrow guarantee (are required not to throw)including swap (the importance of which was illustrated by the example in the previous Item), allocator<T>::deallocate (the importance of which was illustrated by the discussion of operator delete() at the beginning of this miniseries) and certain operations of the template parameter types themselves (especially, the destructor, the importance of which was illustrated in Item 16 by the discussion headed "Destructors That Throw and Why They're Evil").
All standard containers must also implement the strong guarantee for all operations (with two exceptions). They always have commit-or-rollback semantics so that an operation such as an insert either succeeds completely or else does not change the program state at all. "No change" also means that failed operations do not affect the validity of any iterators that happened to be already pointing into the container.
There are only two exceptions to this point. First, for all containers, multi-element inserts ("iterator range" inserts) are never strongly exception-safe. Second, for vector<T> and deque<T> only, inserts and erases (whether single- or multi-element) are strongly exception-safe as long as T's copy constructor and assignment operator do not throw. Note the consequences of these particular limitations. Unfortunately, among other things, this means that inserting into and erasing from a vector<string> or a vector<vector<int> >, for example, are not strongly exception-safe.
Why these particular limitations? Because to roll back either kind of operation isn't possible without extra space/time overhead, and the standard did not want to require that overhead in the name of exception safety. All other container operations can be made strongly exception-safe without overhead. So if you ever insert a range of elements into a container, or if T's copy constructor or assignment operator can throw and you insert into or erase from a vector<T> or a deque<T>, the container will not necessarily have predictable contents afterward and iterators into it may have been invalidated.
What does this mean for you? Well, if you write a class that has a container member and you perform range insertions, or you write a class that has a member of type vector<T> or deque<T>, and T's copy constructor or assignment operator can throw, then you are responsible for doing the extra work to ensure that your own class's state is predictable if exceptions do occur. Fortunately, this "extra work" is pretty simple. Whenever you want to insert into or erase from the container, first take a copy of the container, then perform the change on the copy. Finally, use swap to switch over to using that new version after you know that the copy-and-change steps have succeeded. |
|
IP卡
狗仔卡
显身卡