This may interfere with #4460, specifically at https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/pull/4460/files#diff-3b5851f7056b7c68cb3ba2ab51cf0b75a780c6a11e5e181770067700454ace7bL3417.

#4460 has landed.

There's 2 things to do:

• Mention the default constructor for array exception in the container requirements.
• Mention the move construction exception in array's introduction.

I don't see a need to use notes anymore.

Let me amend that.

• Mention the move construction exception in array's introduction.

This is already present:

16
#
Complexity: Linear for array and constant for all other standard containers.

array's intro says:

3
#
An array meets all of the requirements of a container ([container.reqmts]) and of a reversible container ([container.rev.reqmts]), except that a default constructed array object is not empty and that swap does not have constant complexity.

swap, which is already specified as

47
#
Complexity: Linear for array and constant for all other standard containers.

shouldn't be part of this "except that", since its rightfully part of the container requirements.

A default constructed array object is not always empty. That depends on N. This should be fixed. For simplicity, I plan to keep the "except that" and leave the default constructor container requirements untouched. The reason for this is that it's more incremental and easier to get accepted, as well that all other array exceptions lie in Complexity elements, as well that we'd have to talk about N, which we'd need to introduce, and its specification as a container requirement would be much longer than the existing exceptions for array's complexities.

@jwakely, this boils down to removing redundant specification (swap complexity) and fixing bad specification (zero-sized arrays are, in fact, empty).