Created on 2019-11-06.00:00:00 last changed 7 months ago
This wording is relative to N4849.
[Drafting note: There is no need to explicitly call emit at all in these functions; memberwise move-assignment/destruction is sufficient, so we can strike the specification entirely and rely on the wording in [functions.within.classes]. — end drafting note]
Edit [syncstream.osyncstream.cons] as indicated:
-6- Effects: Calls emit(). If an exception is thrown from emit(), that exception is caught and ignored.
basic_osyncstream& operator=(basic_osyncstream&& rhs) noexcept;
-1- Effects: First, calls emit(). If an exception is thrown from emit(), that exception is caught and ignored. Move assigns sb from rhs.sb. [ Note: This disassociates rhs from its wrapped stream buffer ensuring destruction of rhs produces no output. — end note ] -2- Postconditions: nullptr == rhs.get_wrapped() is true. get_wrapped() returns the value previously returned by rhs.get_wrapped().
[ 2020-02 Status to Immediate Thursday afternoon in Prague. ]
[ 2020-02-13 Tim adds wording after discussion with Peter ]
These functions are specified to call emit(), which calls emit() on the basic_syncbuf and sets badbit if it fails. Then, the move assignment is specified to move-assign the basic_syncbuf, while the destructor implicitly needs to destroy the basic_syncbuf data member. This calls emit() on the basic_syncbuf again.Is this intended?
|2020-02-24 16:02:59||admin||set||status: immediate -> wp|
|2020-02-14 07:30:42||admin||set||messages: + msg11096|
|2020-02-14 07:30:42||admin||set||status: new -> immediate|
|2020-02-13 12:19:21||admin||set||messages: + msg11053|
|2020-02-13 12:19:21||admin||set||messages: + msg11052|