Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

P2450 C++ Standard Library Issues to be moved in Virtual Plenary, Oct. 2021 #5027

Merged
merged 41 commits into from Oct 18, 2021

Conversation

jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

@jensmaurer jensmaurer commented Oct 13, 2021

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added this to the post-2021-10 milestone Oct 13, 2021
@jensmaurer jensmaurer force-pushed the motions-2021-10-lwg-1 branch 3 times, most recently from 639512c to c5e4618 Compare October 14, 2021 15:39
@jensmaurer jensmaurer marked this pull request as ready for review October 14, 2021 15:41
@cpplearner
Copy link
Contributor

LWG3498 "Inconsistent noexcept-specifiers for basic_syncbuf" does not remove the noexcept-specifier of the non-member swap in [syncstream.syncbuf.special].

Given that (1) the non-member swap simply calls the member version, and LWG3498 confirms that the member swap is not noexcept, and (2) the non-member swap is not noexcept in the synopsis, could the noexcept in [syncstream.syncbuf.special] be removed editorially (instead of letting LWG3616 go through the whole LWG process)?

source/time.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/regex.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/locales.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/utilities.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/utilities.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/algorithms.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/iostreams.tex Show resolved Hide resolved
source/iostreams.tex Show resolved Hide resolved
source/iterators.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
source/ranges.tex Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@jensmaurer jensmaurer added the changes requested Changes to the wording or approach have been requested and not yet applied. label Oct 15, 2021
@jensmaurer
Copy link
Member Author

LWG3498 "Inconsistent noexcept-specifiers for basic_syncbuf" does not remove the noexcept-specifier of the non-member swap in [syncstream.syncbuf.special].

Given that (1) the non-member swap simply calls the member version, and LWG3498 confirms that the member swap is not noexcept, and (2) the non-member swap is not noexcept in the synopsis, could the noexcept in [syncstream.syncbuf.special] be removed editorially (instead of letting LWG3616 go through the whole LWG process)?

Commit added to address this editorially. Notified lwgchair.

@jensmaurer jensmaurer removed the changes requested Changes to the wording or approach have been requested and not yet applied. label Oct 15, 2021
…iterator::value_type::end() missing noexcept
"F" appears only once in the expression, so there is no implication
it might be evaluated multiple times.

Introduced by LWG3407.
LWG3498 confirmed that basic_syncbuf's member swap is not 'noexcept'.
Since the non-member swap simply delegates to the member swap,
the former can't be 'noexcept', either.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
4 participants