Description
[except.spec]/5:
An expression E is potentially-throwing if [...] E implicitly invokes a function (such as an overloaded operator, an allocation function in a new-expression, a constructor for a function argument, or a destructor if E is a full-expression) that has a potentially-throwing exception specification [...]
While this is just a list of examples, it can be read as suggesting that the exception specification of a destructor only contributes to whether an expression is potentially-throwing if the expression is a full-expression. But that's not correct -- the expression delete p should consider the destructor of the type of *p (assuming it's a class type and doesn't have a destroying operator delete) regardless of whether it's a full-expression. Also, per [expr.call]/6, parameters in a function call may be destroyed when the call returns rather than at the end of the full-expression.
Also... do we ever even query whether a non-full expression is potentially-throwing? (The definition of potentially-throwing recurses to subexpressions.) The operand of noexcept is a full-expression, and I'd hope we take destructors of temporaries into account in all the other places we use the term!
Suggestion: delete the "if E is a full-expression".