220 4983 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?R=C3=B3bert_D=C3=A1vid?= Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: std::optional - move is conditionally nothrow, what about copy? Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:24:48 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 64 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_511_2515191.1370982288785" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1370982291 23089 80.91.229.3 (11 Jun 2013 20:24:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:24:51 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDMKHJ4B6MARBEUP32GQKGQERXHKJKI@isocpp.org Tue Jun 11 22:24:51 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-vb0-f72.google.com ([209.85.212.72]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1UmV7b-0002xX-PH for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 22:24:51 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-vb0-f72.google.com with SMTP id p12sf7349258vbe.3 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:24:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=gWO/1qFE5IsWK/xbuweA86JL4iqfuZZW8FsiHmhLv3c=; b=dmnB/MFY+yCpZHHa4qfWLhPPu6e8ABBbajxXvPGYauLeZbgcE+CDLPBA0EfqJtGO4C arvPVRtJ9YkVZSQsL4Q6PJlwc99Po+AzxOSG9W0uu0KIv2bFPY4iayp5GXdI0mVYaysE vmSJ42h13BnVB49cr5aha52ZYdIur71lHxOXJDGYLKqer8W4deXkFhaYiWLF9J92yxPA XsBhpHKGFwkD1syImk8ebxyze94NoCEveZGZXER0EXA7PN7Eo2ZQzFkyCRRTJ8gofxUE gVmrHYPQFLuwKU9Smatx8kVX0Zl16Atlx32ZyR572MrNaneqnBt1ycKyb7obxc8D8x/N DylA== X-Received: by 10.224.86.200 with SMTP id t8mr10373773qal.0.1370982290626; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:24:50 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.49.26.100 with SMTP id k4ls3615563qeg.37.gmail; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:24:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.106.231 with SMTP id gx7mr966974qeb.6.1370982289288; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 13:24:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: lrdxgm@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:4983 Archived-At: ------=_Part_511_2515191.1370982288785 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > The rationale for the lack of this specification is that > Is it a lack of specification for noexcept or a specification of lack of noexcept for the constructors (and all other functions, as mentioned in n3279)? As I understand it's the second. N3279 suggest C compatibility functions to "may be marked unconditionally noexcept.", and "No other function (than destructors, functions with wide contract, move-constructors/-assignment ops) should use a conditional noexcept specification", what might be too strict (for instance, for optional). Is this because there was no better agreement of that time? Robert -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/?hl=en. ------=_Part_511_2515191.1370982288785 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
The rationale for the lack= of this specification is that

Is it a lack of sp= ecification for noexcept or a specification of lack of noexcept for the con= structors (and all other functions, as mentioned in n3279)? As I understand= it's the second.

N3279 suggest C compatibility functions to "may be= marked unconditionally noexcept.", and "No other function (than destructor= s, functions with wide contract, move-constructors/-assignment ops) should = use a conditional noexcept specification", what might be too strict (for in= stance, for optional). Is this because there was no better agreement of tha= t time?

Robert

--
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-pro= posals/?hl=3Den.
 
 
------=_Part_511_2515191.1370982288785-- .