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







share|improve this question






















  • How could they be?
    – molbdnilo
    2 days ago















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







share|improve this question






















  • How could they be?
    – molbdnilo
    2 days ago













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







share|improve this question













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






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 2 days ago









Benjamin Buch

838716




838716












  • How could they be?
    – molbdnilo
    2 days ago


















  • How could they be?
    – molbdnilo
    2 days ago
















How could they be?
– molbdnilo
2 days ago




How could they be?
– molbdnilo
2 days ago












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.






share|improve this answer








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
    yesterday











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',
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
});


}
});














 

draft saved


draft discarded


















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








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.






share|improve this answer








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
    yesterday















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.






share|improve this answer








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
    yesterday













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.






share|improve this answer








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.







share|improve this answer








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.









share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer






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 2 days ago









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
    yesterday














  • 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


















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














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





















































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







-

Popular posts from this blog

Quarter-circle Tiles

Image
up vote 0 down vote favorite I have $99$ identical square tiles, each with a quarter-circle drawn on it like this: [asy] size(1.5cm); draw(Arc((2,0),1,90,180),red+1); draw((0,0)--(2,0)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(0,0)); [/asy] When I arrange the tiles in a $9times 11$ rectangular grid, each with a random orientation, what is the expected value of the number of full circles I form? I think this problem has to do with finding the chance any given 2x2 square has a circle, but I can't find it. expected-value share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 20 at 15:03 6minecraftninja 1 2
Read more

build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

Image
0 I think it's similiar to NFAs. I replace the finite states of the given automaton for start-states for my new automaton. I do it with $epsilon$ -transition from the start state to the actual finite states of the given automaton. The start state of the given automaton will be my accepting(finite) state of my new one. All transitions will be reversed of course to recognize the reversed word. But how do I have to change the stack of the pushdown automaton? That's tricky. formal-languages automata context-free-grammar share | cite | improve this question edited Nov 29 '18 at 14:20 joee
Read more

Mont Emei

Image
Mont Emei.mw-parser-output .entete.map{background-image:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Picto_infobox_map.png")} Vue du sommet Wanfo du mont Emei Géographie Altitude 3 099  m , Wanfo Coordonnées 29° 31′ 11″ nord, 103° 19′ 57″ est Administration Pays   Chine Province Sichuan Ville-préfecture Leshan Géolocalisation sur la carte : Sichuan Mont Emei Géolocalisation sur la carte : Chine Mont Emei modifier   Paysage panoramique du mont Emei, incluant le paysage panoramique du grand Bouddha de Leshan *   Patrimoine mondial de l'UNESCO Passerelle en bois sur le versant ouest Pays   Chine Subdivision Sichuan Type Mixte Critères (iv) (vi) (x) Superficie 15 400 ha Numéro d’identification 779 Zone géographique Asie et Pacifique  ** Année d’inscription 1996 (20 e session) * Descriptif officiel UNESCO ** Classification géog
Read more