Why are deque's pop_front() and pop_back() not noexcept?
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
Is there any reason that std::deque's pop_front() and pop_back() are not noexcept in C++11 and higher or was that just forgotten?
c++ c++11 deque c++-standard-library noexcept
asked Nov 21 at 11:57
Benjamin Buch
840716
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
Is there any reason that std::deque's pop_front() and pop_back() are not noexcept in C++11 and higher or was that just forgotten?
c++ c++11 deque c++-standard-library noexcept
asked Nov 21 at 11:57
Benjamin Buch
840716
How could they be?
– molbdnilo
Nov 21 at 12:01
add a comment |
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
up vote
12
down vote
favorite
Is there any reason that std::deque's pop_front() and pop_back() are not noexcept in C++11 and higher or was that just forgotten?
c++ c++11 deque c++-standard-library noexcept
asked Nov 21 at 11:57
Benjamin Buch
840716
Is there any reason that std::deque's pop_front() and pop_back() are not noexcept in C++11 and higher or was that just forgotten?
c++ c++11 deque c++-standard-library noexcept
c++ c++11 deque c++-standard-library noexcept
asked Nov 21 at 11:57
Benjamin Buch
840716
asked Nov 21 at 11:57
Benjamin Buch
840716
asked Nov 21 at 11:57
Benjamin Buch
840716
asked Nov 21 at 11:57
Benjamin Buch
840716
asked Nov 21 at 11:57
Benjamin Buch
840716
840716
How could they be?
– molbdnilo
Nov 21 at 12:01
add a comment |
How could they be?
– molbdnilo
Nov 21 at 12:01
How could they be?
– molbdnilo
Nov 21 at 12:01
How could they be?
– molbdnilo
Nov 21 at 12:01
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
If I understood correctly, the standard doesn't specify noexcept on functions with a narrow contract (with a precondition which violation leads to UB). N3279 and more recently P0884 are talking about this and about how to decide whether a function should be noexcept or not (or conditionally).
This is the case for std::deque's pop_front and pop_back but also on front and back where there is no call to a destructor. Same for std::vector's pop_back, front and back for example.
answered Nov 21 at 13:48
Rémi Galan Alfonso
962
New contributor
Rémi Galan Alfonso is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
This is correct. The idea was to allow implementations to throw an exception if they detected a contract violation. If these functions were marked as noexcept the program would call std::terminate.
– Arnaud
Nov 22 at 16:16
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
If I understood correctly, the standard doesn't specify noexcept on functions with a narrow contract (with a precondition which violation leads to UB). N3279 and more recently P0884 are talking about this and about how to decide whether a function should be noexcept or not (or conditionally).
This is the case for std::deque's pop_front and pop_back but also on front and back where there is no call to a destructor. Same for std::vector's pop_back, front and back for example.
answered Nov 21 at 13:48
Rémi Galan Alfonso
962
New contributor
Rémi Galan Alfonso is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
This is correct. The idea was to allow implementations to throw an exception if they detected a contract violation. If these functions were marked as noexcept the program would call std::terminate.
– Arnaud
Nov 22 at 16:16
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
If I understood correctly, the standard doesn't specify noexcept on functions with a narrow contract (with a precondition which violation leads to UB). N3279 and more recently P0884 are talking about this and about how to decide whether a function should be noexcept or not (or conditionally).
This is the case for std::deque's pop_front and pop_back but also on front and back where there is no call to a destructor. Same for std::vector's pop_back, front and back for example.
answered Nov 21 at 13:48
Rémi Galan Alfonso
962
New contributor
Rémi Galan Alfonso is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
This is correct. The idea was to allow implementations to throw an exception if they detected a contract violation. If these functions were marked as noexcept the program would call std::terminate.
– Arnaud
Nov 22 at 16:16
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
up vote
8
down vote
accepted
If I understood correctly, the standard doesn't specify noexcept on functions with a narrow contract (with a precondition which violation leads to UB). N3279 and more recently P0884 are talking about this and about how to decide whether a function should be noexcept or not (or conditionally).
This is the case for std::deque's pop_front and pop_back but also on front and back where there is no call to a destructor. Same for std::vector's pop_back, front and back for example.
answered Nov 21 at 13:48
Rémi Galan Alfonso
962
New contributor
Rémi Galan Alfonso is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
If I understood correctly, the standard doesn't specify noexcept on functions with a narrow contract (with a precondition which violation leads to UB). N3279 and more recently P0884 are talking about this and about how to decide whether a function should be noexcept or not (or conditionally).
This is the case for std::deque's pop_front and pop_back but also on front and back where there is no call to a destructor. Same for std::vector's pop_back, front and back for example.
answered Nov 21 at 13:48
Rémi Galan Alfonso
962
New contributor
Rémi Galan Alfonso is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Nov 21 at 13:48
Rémi Galan Alfonso
962
New contributor
Rémi Galan Alfonso is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Nov 21 at 13:48
Rémi Galan Alfonso
962
answered Nov 21 at 13:48
Rémi Galan Alfonso
962
962
New contributor
Rémi Galan Alfonso is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Rémi Galan Alfonso is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Rémi Galan Alfonso is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
This is correct. The idea was to allow implementations to throw an exception if they detected a contract violation. If these functions were marked as noexcept the program would call std::terminate.
– Arnaud
Nov 22 at 16:16
add a comment |
1
This is correct. The idea was to allow implementations to throw an exception if they detected a contract violation. If these functions were marked as noexcept the program would call std::terminate.
– Arnaud
Nov 22 at 16:16
1
1
This is correct. The idea was to allow implementations to throw an exception if they detected a contract violation. If these functions were marked as noexcept the program would call std::terminate.
– Arnaud
Nov 22 at 16:16
This is correct. The idea was to allow implementations to throw an exception if they detected a contract violation. If these functions were marked as noexcept the program would call std::terminate.
– Arnaud
Nov 22 at 16:16
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53411553%2fwhy-are-deques-pop-front-and-pop-back-not-noexcept%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
How could they be?
– molbdnilo
Nov 21 at 12:01