On 4/17/2013 3:20 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
"This is the same issue as defining a function with 'auto' in one place
and referring to it having a specific type/attribute in another. So I
think all the same arguments and reasoning discussed above apply equally."
Why is this a valid form of reasoning? The signature of a function that has its
return type inferred includes the function body.
Furthermore, it is not the same issue. It is the dual issue. The distinction is
very relevant because pure and nothrow are designed in an asymmetric way,
They are the same - adding the attribute retains covariance.
given
inference. Attributes can force the specification in one direction only (provide
more guarantees to callers), but not in the other one (require less from
subclasses).
Pure and nothrow provide more guarantees, hence covariance.
The concerns the latter can certainly not be dismissed by using the same
arguments and reasoning as for the former without any further examination.
They're both the same issue of covariance.
