This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of C++17 status.

### 2556. Wide contract for `future::share()`

Section: 33.10.7 [futures.unique.future] Status: C++17 Submitter: Agustín K-ballo Bergé Opened: 2015-11-05 Last modified: 2021-06-06

Priority: 3

View all other issues in [futures.unique.future].

View all issues with C++17 status.

Discussion:

`future::share()` is not `noexcept`, it has a narrow contact requiring `valid()` as per the blanket wording in [futures.unique_future] p3. Its effects, however, are `return shared_future<R>(std::move(*this))`, which is `noexcept` as it has a wide contract. If the source `future` isn't valid then the target `shared_future` simply won't be valid either. There appears to be no technical reason preventing `future::share()` from having a wide contract, and thus being `noexcept`.

[2016-08-03 Chicago]

Fri AM: Moved to Tentatively Ready

Proposed resolution:

This wording is relative to N4567.

1. Change [futures.unique_future] as indicated:

   > -3- The effect of calling any member function other than the destructor, the move-assignment operator, `share`, or `valid` on a `future` object for which `valid() == false` is undefined. [Note: Implementations are encouraged to detect this case and throw an object of type `future_error` with an error condition of `future_errc::no_state`. — end note]

   > >     namespace std {
   > >       template <class R>
   > >       class future {
   > >       public:
   > >         […]
   > >         shared_future<R> share() noexcept;
   > >         […]
   > >       };
   > >     }

   > […]

   >     shared_future<R> share() noexcept;

   > > -12- Returns: `shared_future<R>(std::move(*this))`.

   > > -13- Postcondition: `valid() == false`.

   > […]