Created on 2021-10-07.00:00:00 last changed 7 days ago
This wording is relative to N4892.
Modify [syncstream.syncbuf.special] as indicated:
template<class charT, class traits, class Allocator> void swap(basic_syncbuf<charT, traits, Allocator>& a, basic_syncbuf<charT, traits, Allocator>& b)
-1- Effects: Equivalent to a.swap(b).
[ 2021-10-14; Reflector poll ]
Set status to Tentatively Ready after seven votes in favour during reflector poll.
LWG 3498 fixes the inconsistent noexcept-specifiers for member functions of basic_syncbuf, but the proposed resolution in LWG 3498 seems to miss the non-member swap, which also has inconsistent noexcept-specifier: [syncstream.syncbuf.special] says it's noexcept, while [syncstream.syn] says it's not.Since the non-member swap and the member swap have equivalent effect, and LWG 3498 removes noexcept from the latter, I think it's pretty clear that the former should not be noexcept.
|2021-10-14 11:35:22||admin||set||messages: + msg12152|
|2021-10-14 11:35:22||admin||set||status: new -> ready|
|2021-10-10 10:43:25||admin||set||messages: + msg12104|