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
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
How could they be?
– molbdnilo
2 days ago
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
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 2 days ago
Benjamin Buch
838716
838716
How could they be?
– molbdnilo
2 days ago
add a comment |
How could they be?
– molbdnilo
2 days ago
How could they be?
– molbdnilo
2 days ago
How could they be?
– molbdnilo
2 days ago
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.
New contributor
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
yesterday
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.
New contributor
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
yesterday
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.
New contributor
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
yesterday
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.
New contributor
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.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 2 days ago
Rémi Galan Alfonso
962
962
New contributor
New contributor
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
yesterday
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
2 days ago