Re: [boost] [variant2] documentation request

Subject: Re: [boost] [variant2] documentation request
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-03-05 20:08:08

On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:27 PM degski via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 at 20:00, Emil Dotchevski via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > This, by the way, is proof positive that noexcept is
> > defective: the thing that specifies that something can't throw is,
> > practically speaking, useless in checking if something may throw.
> >
>
> There's no need for proof of its *defectiveness for the purpose* you would
> like to use it: "Note that a *noexcept* specification on a function is not
> a compile-time check; it is merely a method for a programmer to inform the
> compiler whether or not a function should throw exceptions." *)

Yes I am aware of the semantics of noexcept. The point is, "I'm thinking of
code that I am not permitted to change, whose moves are not noexcept
because somebody forgot to mark them, and it's now written into stone for
the next five years." indicates a problem with the noexcept definition. On
the other hand, statically enforced noexcept would have other problems. I
don't think it can be fixed.