I was reading the specification regarding what string reserve() is required to do and what it ensures. And as far as I can tell, it doesn't really guarantee what is popularly expected (like that there will be no reallocation if you do not cross the capacity).
As far as I understand the specification, a conforming basic_string implementation could very well keep a capacity member value (it must since the value is observable with the capacity() method) and keep growing it upon calls to reserve or changes of the string size but otherwise ignore it.
Am I too picky about the wording? Or is it really poorly expressed?
Would it be feasible to change the wording of basic_string (and others as well - I expect containers have the same issue) to be more formal and clear about dependencies between size, capacity, and calls to the allocator. Also regarding exception guarantees - if you operate on the string within its capacity the allocator is not called and hence all operations are noexcept. (Provided there are no index errors etc. which would otherwise lead to exceptions anyway.)