Is make_unique in initializer list in copy constructor good purpose to not use noexcept specifier?

  • A+
Category:Languages

I have a hurdle with noexcept specifier next to my copy constructor.

#include <memory> #include <vector>  class Foo final {  public:   Foo() noexcept = default;   Foo(const Foo& oth) : impl_(std::make_unique<Foo::Impl>()) {} // <---   ~Foo() noexcept = default;  private:   class Impl;   std::unique_ptr<Impl> impl_; };  class Foo::Impl {   ...  private:   std::vector<int> some_data; }  

I'm not sure if I should put noexcept next to copy constructor while there is std::make_unique that can throw bad_alloc.

Any help will be apreciated!

 


The cpp coding guidelines are pretty clear about it in E.12: Use noexcept when exiting a function because of a throw is impossible or unacceptable

So you can use noexcept even if the call of that function/ctor could result in an exception, if that exception would - in your opinion - result in a not handleable state of your application.

Example from the guidelines:

vector<double> munge(const vector<double>& v) noexcept {     vector<double> v2(v.size());     // ... do something ... } 

The noexcept here states that I am not willing or able to handle the situation where I cannot construct the local vector. That is, I consider memory exhaustion a serious design error (on par with hardware failures) so that I'm willing to crash the program if it happens.

So if a failed construction of Foo can be handled using a try-catch block without serious problems. Then you won't use a noexcept there.

Comment

:?: :razz: :sad: :evil: :!: :smile: :oops: :grin: :eek: :shock: :???: :cool: :lol: :mad: :twisted: :roll: :wink: :idea: :arrow: :neutral: :cry: :mrgreen: