问题
Please consider the following code snippet:
template<class Tuple>
class vector
{
public:
typename Tuple::size_type size() const noexcept(noexcept(m_elements.size())) {
return m_elements.size();
}
private:
Tuple m_elements;
};
class tuple
{
public:
using size_type = std::size_t;
size_type size() const { return 0; }
size_type size() noexcept { return 0; }
};
int main()
{
vector<tuple> x;
static_assert(noexcept(x.size()), "x.size() might throw");
return 0;
}
Is the use of the member variable m_elements
inside the noexcept
specifier legal? GCC 5.2 (C++17) yields the compiler error m_elements
was not declared in this scope. while clang 3.6 (C++17) compiles without any error.
Both compilers yield no error if I use noexcept(std::declval<Tuple const&>().size())
instead. However, as you can see, I've created a simple example class tuple
where it's crucial whether or not Tuple
has qualified overloads of size
.
From my point of view, it's more intuitive to write noexcept(m_elements.size())
cause it's exactly the call in the function body and it takes into account that the size
method of vector
is const
qualified (which makes m_elements
a const object in the scope of the function).
So, what's the legal usage? If both are equivalent, which should I use? Should I use noexcept
qualifiers at all in this scenario? The problem is that whether or not the vector
functions will throw depends in all most every case on Tuple
.
回答1:
Clang is correct here, this is gcc bug 52869. According to [basic.scope.class], emphasis mine:
The potential scope of a name declared in a class consists not only of the declarative region following the name’s point of declaration, but also of all function bodies, default arguments, exception-specifications, and brace-or-equal-initializers of non-static data members in that class (including such things in nested classes).
The scope of m_elements
includes the noexcept-specification for size()
.
来源:https://stackoverflow.com/questions/35872045/can-we-refer-to-member-variables-in-a-noexcept-specification