Re: [boost] delayed_forward: good, bad, ugly?

11 Jan 2023

...
...
I added FooOld, which corresponds to the unsafe design I want to replace.
https://godbolt.org/z/15q9EqnfP
Thanks. I note that as written, FooOld actually has the same problem even
if the argument is not taken by value.
template <class T>
struct FooOld2 {
   FooOld2(bool b, T const& targ) : t_(targ) {
       if (b)
           throw 1;
   }
   FooOld2(bool b, T&& targ = {}) : t_(std::move(targ)) {
       if (b)
           throw 1;
   }
private:
   T t_;
};
There might be a difference between passing by value or not, but for that,
the exception would have to be thrown from a base or previous member
initialization, and not the constructor body.
Yes, FooOld2 is also unsafe, but you can use a rollback guard to undo the move.

   FooOld3(bool b, T&& targ = {}) : t_(std::move(targ)) {
       rollback r(targ, t_); // moves t_ back to targ if not deactivated
       if (b)
           throw 1;
       r.deactivate();
   }

Or you can put all the throwing code into a lambda

   FooOld4(bool b, T&& targ = {}) : t_(
     [&](auto&& targ) {
        // to all the potentially throwing stuff here
        return targ;
     }(std::forward(targ))
   ) {
   }

The rollback version is also ok, but cannot be used when you pass by value.

I don’t like the lambda version, it makes the code unreadable.

Re: [boost] delayed_forward: good, bad, ugly?

Hans Dembinski