As suggested in D117966 (attn @ldionne).
These conditional noexcepts are *permitted* by the Standard (as long
as there were no mistakes in them, I guess); but not *mandated*.
The Standard doesn't put any noexcept-specifications on these member functions.
The same logic would apply to transform_view::iterator::operator*
and transform_view::iterator::operator[], but the Standard mandates
conditional noexcept on iter_move(transform_view::iterator), and
I think it doesn't make much sense to say "moving from this iterator
is conditionally noexcept but not-moving from it is noexcept(false),"
so I'm leaving transform_view alone for now.
Details
Details
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
LGTM. This fly-by refactoring was riiiight on the limit where I would have asked for as separate NFC :-).