Re: [C++ RFC / Patch] Implementing "Deducing "noexcept" for destructors"

[Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>]

Hi,
> > we reject, with a "different exception specifier" error, both:
> >
> > template<typename T>
> > struct A
> > {
> >   ~A() noexcept;
> > };
> >
> > template<typename T>
> > A<T>::~A() { }
> >
> > and:
> >
> > template<typename T>
> > struct A
> > {
> >   ~A();
> > };
> >
> > template<typename T>
> > A<T>::~A() noexcept { }
> >
> > Over the last days I wasted a lot of time trying painfully to not 
> > reject either, but actually now I'm pretty sure that we are right to 
> > reject the former (there are exception specifiers on the declaration 
> > thus automatic deduction should not trigger at all) and probably also 
> > the latter.
>
> I'm OK with that, as long as we correctly allow
>
> struct B
> {
>   ~B() noexcept;
> };
>
> B::~B() { }
>
> and
>
> struct B
> {
>   ~B();
> };
> B::~B() noexcept { }
Agreed. Thanks for asking on the reflector.
> The patch is OK.
Thanks again, the patch is in with the attached ChangeLog.

Paolo.

////////////////////////

Attachment: CL_50043
Description: Text document