If you want to do something with exceptions, I think it's far more productive to annotate what type of exceptions a function can throw as opposed to that it can just throw exceptions. And make not throwing exceptions the default.

Exceptions are a fundamentally broken concept and since their inception the same problems keep popping up.
Adding features to exception feels like a waste of time, like putting lipstick on a pig.

If you want to fix something we need to address the basic concepts that it got wrong.

Other modern language that decided not to have exceptions are safer because of it, and it was the best design choice they could have made.

My 2c is kill it.


________________________________
From: Std-Proposals <std-proposals-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Simon Schröder via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2025 12:40:36 PM
To: std-proposals_at_[hidden] <std-proposals_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Simon Schröder <dr.simon.schroeder_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [std-proposals] noexcept has gotten a bit hairy -- I want a compiler error

It seems that people have already forgotten: C++ used to have a way to mark functions that are not noexcept: ‘throw’. It turned out that programmers were now good at providing this information which is why we now annotate functions the other way around. Marking functions as throwing was so unpopular that this feature was deprecated in C++11 and removed in C++17 (https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/except_spec).

Concerning C functions: Would it make sense to automatically declare all ‘extern “C”’ functions noexcept? Or is this something that is already allowed for compilers to assume? It might be a bad idea if someone provides a C interface for a C++ implementation, though.

On May 9, 2025, at 9:41 AM, Filip via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

Just a thought but I would like to have some level of mandatory usage of noexcept.

Why isn’t it mandatory to mark function that has throw statement with noexcept(false)?
Then it would be very clear what to look for.

I would like to be explicit with maybe try keyword that could be used to mark a function that throws as automatically rethrowing.
In my experience it would greatly reduce the time it takes to look for exception handling.

Cheers, Filip

Wiadomość napisana przez Thiago Macieira via Std-Proposals <std-proposals_at_[hidden]> w dniu 6 maj 2025, o godz. 20:56:

On Tuesday, 6 May 2025 02:54:32 Pacific Daylight Time Frederick Virchanza
Gotham via Std-Proposals wrote:
   size_t bytes_needed(char const *const p) noexcept(explicit)
   {
       if ( nullptr == p ) return 0uz;
       return noexcept_cast<true>(strlen)(p) + 1uz;
   }

That would be one possible use of "noexcept_cast".

Or:

   return [&]() noexcept { return strlen(p); }();

Let's not reinvent the wheel if already have a solution, albeit with a small
syntax cost. This also removes the need to capture an overload set for the
cast operator.

And you should really complain to your C library and have them add the
noexcept markers. It's QoI. glibc has the marker there for strlen, so for all
I care the problem is solved and every other implementation out there is
simply behind the state of the art.

--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
 Principal Engineer - Intel DCAI Platform & System Engineering



--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals