Created on 2010-08-03.00:00:00 last changed 131 months ago
[Voted into the WP at the November, 2010 meeting.]
Proposed resolution (August, 2010):
Change 11.4.7 [class.dtor] paragraph 4 as follows:
[Note: an implicitly- declared destructor has an exception-specification (15.4).An explictly defaulted definition has no implicit exception-specification.—end note]
Change 11.4.5.3 [class.copy.ctor] paragraph 15 as follows:
[Note: an implicitly-declared copy/move constructor has an exception-specification (15.4).An explicitly-defaulted definition (8.4.2) has no implicit exception-specification.—end note]
Change 11.4.5.3 [class.copy.ctor] paragraph 29 as follows:
[Note: An implicitly-declared copy/move assignment operator has an exception- specification (15.4).An explicitly-defaulted definition has no implicit exception-specification.—end note]
The note in 11.4.7 [class.dtor] paragraph 4 says,
An explictly defaulted definition has no implicit exception-specification.
There are similar notes in 11.4.5.3 [class.copy.ctor] paragraphs 15 and 29.
However, 9.5.2 [dcl.fct.def.default] bullet 2.4 says that a special member function that is explicitly defaulted on its first declaration
is implicitly considered to have the same exception-specification as if it had been implicitly declared (14.5 [except.spec])
The notes are incorrect.
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2014-03-03 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: fdis -> c++11 |
| 2011-04-10 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: dr -> fdis |
| 2010-11-29 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg3184 |
| 2010-11-29 00:00:00 | admin | set | status: ready -> dr |
| 2010-08-23 00:00:00 | admin | set | messages: + msg2793 |
| 2010-08-03 00:00:00 | admin | create | |