http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52702
--- Comment #3 from Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler at googlemail dot com> 2012-04-15 14:05:43 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) > Daniel I'm adding this. > > By the way, is "is_nothrow_destructible" doable just now or needs compiler > support? Are you willing to give it a try, in case? (or, if necessary, I can > do > the compiler bits) It would complete our implementation of the is_nothrow_* > set. The reason why I did not suggested it for the moment is simply because LWG issue http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-active.html#2049 is still open. Actually, the correct solution for no_throw_destructible depends on the P/R as well. Of-course one could simply start with a partial solution (e.g. handle uncontroversial types like reference types, non-function, and non-abstract types), but I'm not sure whether it is worth the effort. If you would like to have just an consistent current trait matching to the current is_destructible implementation, I can work on that. Roughly about the mid of up-coming week would seem reasonable for me to start on that.
