On 30/07/17 15:01 +0200, Daniel Krügler wrote:
2017-07-28 22:40 GMT+02:00 Daniel Krügler <daniel.krueg...@gmail.com>:
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 ;-)
A slightly revised patch update: It replaces the _S_to_string_view
template by a simpler _S_to_string_view function as of Tim Song's
suggestion, but still uses the simplified noexcept specification
deferring it to a future application case for is_nothrow_convertible.
Furthermore now all three compare function templates are now
(conditionally) noexcept by an (off-list) suggestion from Jonathan
Wakely.
I've committed this, after some whitespace fixes and testing.
Thanks!
