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@lists.isocpp.org> 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 listStd-Proposals@lists.isocpp.orghttps://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals