>> Also this solution allows easier to adopt new syntax to existing code

It will allow easier adopt Zero-overhead exception feature.
This also could work with pointer and all other type, because internally
code will be translate to:

This code:
```cpp
Subscription subscribe() throws SubscriptionError;

Subscription subscribe() throws {
    ...
    throw SubscriptionError{"Error", Payload};
    ...
}
```
translates to:
```cpp
struct SubscribeResult {
  Subscription res;
  SubscriptionError err;
};

SubscribeResult subscribe();

SubscribeResult subscribe() {
    ...
    return SubscribeResult{ .err = SubscriptionError{"Error", Payload} };
    ...
}
```
or even more optimal:
```cpp
union SubscribeResult {
  Subscription res;
  SubscriptionError err;
};

SubscribeResult subscribe();

SubscribeResult subscribe() {
    ...
    return SubscribeResult{ .err = SubscriptionError{"Error", Payload} };
    ...
}
```

I think it could depend on compiler implementation, but instead of raw
integer we could have any object with the same effect Zero-overhead ;)

On Wed, 14 Oct 2020 at 13:35, Denis Kotov <redradist_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> This can work if definitions if will be added this following syntax:
>
> ```cpp
> Subscription subscribe() throws SubscriptionError;
>
> Subscription subscribe() throws {
> ...
> throw SubscriptionError{"Error", Payload};
> ...
> }
> ```
>
> This syntax solves the issue when you need to add some data to exceptions.
> Also this solution allows easier to adopt new syntax to existing code
>
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2020 at 03:17, Jason McKesson via Std-Discussion <
> std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 5:01 PM Denis Kotov via Std-Discussion
>> <std-discussion_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > I would like to discuss Zero-Overhead proposal, I would like if Herb
>> Sutter will participate
>> >
>> > >>
>> > I was so exited when I first saw your video with Zero-Overhead
>> exception proposal that this proposal stuck in my head and I thought about
>> it while to while ...
>> >
>> > Today I decided that to wrote some my thought about it:
>> > I little bit disagree the we need to return std::error instead of
>> exception because it is possible to make Zero-Overhead exceptions without
>> changing the way of checking exceptions
>> >
>> > How can we achieve it ... ?
>> > Easy, we just need to implicitly to add to signature of the function
>> the list of exceptions that it throw ...
>> > Wow, wow, wow ... I hear from you, but it was the previous solution
>> with dynamic exception ...
>> > Not exactly, consider the example:
>> > void func throws {
>> > throw WeirdException("Some Weird Exception");
>> > }
>> >
>> > it will translates at compilation time to this:
>> > void func throws(WeirdException)
>> >
>> > It will be done by compiler without user interaction ... It will allow
>> on caller side (for compiler) to know exactly which exceptions function
>> throw, and compiler would be able to generate code something like in the
>> example of GodBolt (see below)
>>
>> First, this only works under the same circumstances as return type
>> auto-deduction. So if the definition needs to be elsewhere for any
>> reason, it just doesn't work. Also, it can't work through function
>> pointers or any other runtime indirect calling mechanism
>> (`std::function`, etc), unlike proper static exceptions.
>>
>> Second, it's unclear what problem this solves. `std::error` can carry
>> any exception as it currently stands. So you can already throw
>> `WeirdException`. And you can catch the exception too, even though you
>> have to catch `std::error` and extract the proper exception object
>> from it.
>>
>> The only thing this might do is add a bit of syntactic sugar at the
>> catch site. And that sugar doesn't require annotating the function (by
>> the compiler or anyone else).
>>
>> Also, what happens if you have two functions which throw different
>> exceptions, and you just let them throw those exceptions to the
>> caller? What type does the compiler add to your function?
>> --
>> Std-Discussion mailing list
>> Std-Discussion_at_[hidden]
>> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-discussion
>>
>
>
> --
>
> *Best RegardsDenis Kotov*
>

-- 
*Best RegardsDenis Kotov*