[olliej]

I phrased that badly - it should have been “I don’t know every edge case in the STL, and so I don’t know why this would have different behavior”.

However thanks for explaining the issue. This one is obvious and I just completely failed to think about how you ensure the source object is in a safe state if an exception occurs part way through moving the source data. It seems to imply the old MSVC behaviour was incorrect in such a scenario, but I hadn’t considered that possibility so assumed it was correct and therefore didn’t think of why this behaviour is required.

My solution is of course to simply not allow exceptions because the c++ model of everything implicitly throwing is just as annoying as Java’s “let’s explicitly annotate everything” model albeit with different paths to sadness.

[chaboud]

Fair enough. Honestly, there are very few people in the world who could confidently claim that they know all of the STL. The first place I worked at disallowed it (MSVC 5 was fresh then, so it was somewhat understandable), and we had our own performance centric data structures. But the value of container classes and promises about performance first really hit me when I went to my next job and dug in on the STL. Truly eye opening stuff, and absolutely available for reading (which was pretty cool at the time).