[PATCH] C++11: noexcept should check whether the expression is a constant expression

[Ismail Pazarbasi]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Ismail Pazarbasi
> <ismail.pazarbasi at gmail.com> 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.
Reading the issue 1351 didn't give a hint to me either, and I was
confused. That's why I have asked whether I *imagined it* correct :)

>
>>
>>   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.
I have read entire except.spec yesterday. I was drifted to the "set"
too much, and thinking of exception specification as merely a set,
completely ignoring the meaning of noexcept. Sorry for the noise!

Since you are doing the whole implementation shall we drop this review then?