Hi,
Paper N2855 proposes that Move Constructors and Destructors are
implicitly defined noexcept. As I understand it, move constructors are
intended to "steal" the state from their r-value argument and
therefore need not allocate/acquire anything so there is no failure to
be expected. Can't the same argument be made in favor of implicitly
defining Move Assignments as constexpr? I imagine that move assignment
is more-less equivalent to calling a destructor followed by move
constructor, both of which proposed to be implicitly noexpect.

Regards,
&rzej

--
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@netlab.cs.rpi.edu]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.comeaucomputing.com/csc/faq.html                      ]