From 3b3c0f68e88ccef9c69b4ebfc74dcf9e576fad75 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Daniel James Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 23:57:52 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Rewrite the swap implementation note so that it make some sort of sense. [SVN r39952] --- doc/rationale.qbk | 9 ++++----- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/rationale.qbk b/doc/rationale.qbk index 81b97149..d5079dc8 100644 --- a/doc/rationale.qbk +++ b/doc/rationale.qbk @@ -115,11 +115,10 @@ There is currently a further issue - if the allocator's swap does throw there's no guarantee what state the allocators will be in. The only solution seems to be to double buffer the allocators. But I'm assuming that it won't throw for now. -Update: the comittee have now decided that swap should do a fast swap if the -allocator is Swappable and a slow swap using copy construction otherwise. In -the future I develop support for concepts and do this, but what should I do for -the current implementation and, in the future, compilers without concepts? I -should probably change it to a slow swap. +Update: The comittee have now decided that `swap` should do a fast swap if the +allocator is Swappable and a slow swap using copy construction otherwise. To +make this distinction requires concepts. For now I'm sticking with the current +implementation. [h3 [@http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-active.html#518 518. Are insert and erase stable for unordered_multiset and unordered_multimap?]]