Why are deque's pop_front() and pop_back() not noexcept?
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 '18 at 11:57
Benjamin Buch
875716
add a comment |
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 '18 at 11:57
Benjamin Buch
875716
How could they be?
– molbdnilo
Nov 21 '18 at 12:01
add a comment |
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 '18 at 11:57
Benjamin Buch
875716
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 '18 at 11:57
Benjamin Buch
875716
asked Nov 21 '18 at 11:57
Benjamin Buch
875716
asked Nov 21 '18 at 11:57
Benjamin Buch
875716
asked Nov 21 '18 at 11:57
Benjamin Buch
875716
asked Nov 21 '18 at 11:57
Benjamin Buch
875716
875716
How could they be?
– molbdnilo
Nov 21 '18 at 12:01
add a comment |
How could they be?
– molbdnilo
Nov 21 '18 at 12:01
How could they be?
– molbdnilo
Nov 21 '18 at 12:01
How could they be?
– molbdnilo
Nov 21 '18 at 12:01
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
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 '18 at 13:48
Rémi Galan Alfonso
962
2
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 '18 at 16:16
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
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 '18 at 13:48
Rémi Galan Alfonso
962
2
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 '18 at 16:16
add a comment |
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 '18 at 13:48
Rémi Galan Alfonso
962
2
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 '18 at 16:16
add a comment |
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 '18 at 13:48
Rémi Galan Alfonso
962
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 '18 at 13:48
Rémi Galan Alfonso
962
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:48
Rémi Galan Alfonso
962
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:48
Rémi Galan Alfonso
962
answered Nov 21 '18 at 13:48
Rémi Galan Alfonso
962
962
2
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 '18 at 16:16
add a comment |
2
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 '18 at 16:16
2
2
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 '18 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 '18 at 16:16
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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 '18 at 12:01