I have read the resolution for the issue 1351, and I was curious about
aligning this with the removal of dynamic exception specifications as well.
Could you please confirm whether I understood this part correctly; given the
example in issue 1351, in the move constructor declaration, "noexcept" is
represented with an empty set:
`B(B&&, int = (throw Y(), 0)) throw(Y) noexcept;`
The union of set of potential exceptions is: {Y} U {Y} U {} = {Y};
Likewise, if it was:
`B(B&&, int = (throw Y(), 0)) throw(Z) noexcept;`
The union of set of potential exceptions: {Y} U {Z} U {} = {Y, Z}
Could you please explain the purpose of having throw(E) and noexcept on the
same declarator? I understand throw(E) and noexcept(false) would be compatible.
http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D538
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
