2017-07-28 22:29 GMT+02:00 Daniel Krügler <daniel.krueg...@gmail.com>:
> 2017-07-28 22:25 GMT+02:00 Tim Song <t.canens....@gmail.com>:
>> On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Daniel Krügler
>> <daniel.krueg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> + // Performs an implicit conversion from _Tp to __sv_type.
>>> + template<typename _Tp>
>>> + static __sv_type _S_to_string_view(const _Tp& __svt)
>>> + {
>>> + return __svt;
>>> + }
>>
>> I might have gone for
>>
>> + static __sv_type _S_to_string_view(__sv_type __svt) noexcept
>> + {
>> + return __svt;
>> + }
>>
>> With that, we can also use noexcept(_S_to_string_view(__t)) to make up
>> for the absence of is_nothrow_convertible (basically the same thing I
>> did in LWG 2993's PR).
>
> Agreed, that makes very much sense. I will adjust the P/R, but before
> I resubmit I would like to get feedback whether the other two compare
> functions also should become conditionally noexcept.
Locally I have now performed the sole change of the _S_to_string_view
declaration getting rid of the template, but would also like to gather
feedback from the maintainers whether I should also change the form of
the conditional noexcept to use the expression
noexcept(_S_to_string_view(__t))
instead of the current
is_same<_Tp, __sv_type>::value
as suggested by Tim Song.
I'm asking also, because I have a paper proposing to standardize
is_nothrow_convertible submitted for the upcoming C++ mailing - This
would be one of the first applications in the library ;-)
> Thanks,
>
> - Daniel
