On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Ismail Pazarbasi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.
I've started working on implementing core issue 1351. We discussed this
issue in a CWG teleconference today, and there are some tweaks to the
wording coming...
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;`
>
This is ill-formed. A function declaration can only have one
exception-specification.
> 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.
throw(E) and noexcept(false) are not compatible exception-specifications;
see 15.4/3.
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
