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?










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?










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?










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






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

Ellipse (mathématiques)

Quarter-circle Tiles

Mont Emei