Skip to content

Conversation

hewillk
Copy link
Contributor

@hewillk hewillk commented Sep 26, 2025

This function is defined without noexcept, which is reasonable since gen can throw.
Is this the editorial or the LWG?

@eisenwave
Copy link
Member

eisenwave commented Sep 27, 2025

This is a wording bug in cplusplus/papers#2097

The paper removes noexcept from those constructors, but makes no changes to the synopsis, and neither LWG nor editors noticed that. The intent is clearly to remove noexcept from the constructors of basic_vec and basic_mask, so this issue is editorial.

We should make corresponding changes to basic_mask, which also has a stray noexcept in the synopsis.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants