Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2020 11:38:55 +0100
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:26 AM Daniel Krügler
<daniel.kruegler_at_[hidden]> wrote:
[...]
> > But what is, *formally*, the situation? That C++11 and C++14 remain
> > buggy and that an implementation which applies a fix is non-conforming?
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm not the proper person to answer this question.
But the answer follows from your other answer below :-)
> > That is, must the operator be noexcept( true ) in C++11 and C++14?
>
> According to the specification of C++11 and C++14: Yes.
So, an implementation which uses something different is non-conforming
:-)
Thanks, I'll comment on the Cppreference page with a link to this
discussion.
<daniel.kruegler_at_[hidden]> wrote:
[...]
> > But what is, *formally*, the situation? That C++11 and C++14 remain
> > buggy and that an implementation which applies a fix is non-conforming?
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm not the proper person to answer this question.
But the answer follows from your other answer below :-)
> > That is, must the operator be noexcept( true ) in C++11 and C++14?
>
> According to the specification of C++11 and C++14: Yes.
So, an implementation which uses something different is non-conforming
:-)
Thanks, I'll comment on the Cppreference page with a link to this
discussion.
-- -- .:: Gennaro Prota ::. .:: https://about.me/gennaro.prota ::.
Received on 2020-02-21 04:42:13