Re: We have a new standard!

Liste des GroupesRevenir à cl c++ 
Sujet : Re: We have a new standard!
De : eesnimi (at) *nospam* osa.pri.ee (Paavo Helde)
Groupes : comp.lang.c++
Date : 03. Jan 2025, 20:46:15
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vl9eq7$1n1d$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 03.01.2025 17:50, Sam wrote:
Paavo Helde writes:
>
It might be obvious to you, but not for everybody. What exact problem can be solved by validating thrown exception classes at compile time?
 Ummm… Making it logically impossible to throw an uncaught exception? The code will refuse to compile because it will be ill-formed. Getting rid of std::uncaught_exception(), completely?
I have never used std::uncaught_exception(). Well, I think I tried to use it once, 20 years ago, but it did not work in any useful way IIRC.
Anyway, avoiding uncaught exceptions is easy, one just has to place catch(...) in main() and in all thread functions. Problem solved.
Double exceptions appearing during stack unwind are more tricky. Here some compiler support enforcing noexcept would be nice indeed. But this would not need any more detailed exception specifications.

                                                               And how would a developer of a base class know which exceptions I might want to throw from an overridden virtual function in a derived class, which might be developed and compiled fully separately from the base class?
 The developer doesn't need to figure it out, the compiler will tell him.
You misunderstood my point. Yes, the compiler will refuse to compile my code because a new algorithm implementation throws a new kind of SocketException or whatever. So what next? The goal is to compile my code, not to get compiler errors.
Now I have to change the signatures of the umpteen functions in the call stack in umpteen classes in umpteen projects to let the new required exception through (or translate it to something else via an even more questionable hack). The point is that those umpteen functions could not care less about what exceptions go through them as they will just pass them all through. So what's the point?
At any frame in the call stack, if I want to catch a specific exception, I can do that. Everything else goes up to the top-level catch(...) and gets logged or converted to an error message as appropriate.
Why should I arbitrarily restrict what exceptions I can throw in some function? Seems to me like arbitrarily deciding that some functions may not use switch() and some other functions may not use while(). Why?

Date Sujet#  Auteur
27 Dec 24 * We have a new standard!125Stefan Ram
28 Dec 24 +* Re: We have a new standard!40Sam
28 Dec 24 i+- Re: We have a new standard!1Chris M. Thomasson
28 Dec 24 i`* Re: We have a new standard!38Muttley
28 Dec 24 i +* Re: We have a new standard!26David Brown
29 Dec 24 i i`* Re: We have a new standard!25Muttley
29 Dec 24 i i `* Re: We have a new standard!24David Brown
29 Dec 24 i i  +* Re: We have a new standard!8Muttley
30 Dec 24 i i  i`* Re: We have a new standard!7David Brown
30 Dec 24 i i  i `* Re: We have a new standard!6Muttley
30 Dec 24 i i  i  `* Re: We have a new standard!5David Brown
30 Dec 24 i i  i   `* Re: We have a new standard!4Muttley
31 Dec 24 i i  i    +- Re: We have a new standard!1James Kuyper
1 Jan 25 i i  i    `* Re: We have a new standard!2Michael S
1 Jan 25 i i  i     `- Re: We have a new standard!1Muttley
29 Dec 24 i i  +* Re: We have a new standard!12Paavo Helde
29 Dec 24 i i  i+* Re: We have a new standard!5Michael S
30 Dec 24 i i  ii`* Re: We have a new standard!4Tim Rentsch
30 Dec 24 i i  ii `* Re: We have a new standard!3boltar
30 Dec 24 i i  ii  +- Re: We have a new standard!1David Brown
31 Dec 24 i i  ii  `- Re: We have a new standard!1Tim Rentsch
30 Dec 24 i i  i`* Re: We have a new standard!6Tim Rentsch
30 Dec 24 i i  i +- Re: We have a new standard!1David Brown
31 Dec 24 i i  i `* Re: We have a new standard!4Chris M. Thomasson
31 Dec 24 i i  i  `* Re: We have a new standard!3Tim Rentsch
31 Dec 24 i i  i   `* Re: We have a new standard!2David Brown
31 Dec 24 i i  i    `- Re: We have a new standard!1Chris M. Thomasson
30 Dec 24 i i  `* Re: We have a new standard!3Michael S
30 Dec 24 i i   `* Re: We have a new standard!2David Brown
4 Jan 25 i i    `- Re: We have a new standard!1Michael S
28 Dec 24 i `* Re: We have a new standard!11Phillip
29 Dec 24 i  `* Re: We have a new standard!10Muttley
29 Dec 24 i   `* Re: We have a new standard!9Sam
29 Dec 24 i    +* Re: We have a new standard!4wij
29 Dec 24 i    i`* Re: We have a new standard!3Muttley
29 Dec 24 i    i `* Re: We have a new standard!2wij
29 Dec 24 i    i  `- Re: We have a new standard!1Muttley
29 Dec 24 i    `* Re: We have a new standard!4Muttley
29 Dec 24 i     `* Re: We have a new standard!3Sam
29 Dec 24 i      +- Re: We have a new standard!1Muttley
29 Dec 24 i      `- Re: We have a new standard!1Michael S
28 Dec 24 +* Re: We have a new standard!9Benutzer Eins
28 Dec 24 i`* Re: We have a new standard!8Chris Ahlstrom
28 Dec 24 i +* Re: We have a new standard!6Lynn McGuire
28 Dec 24 i i`* Re: We have a new standard!5Lynn McGuire
29 Dec 24 i i `* Re: We have a new standard!4Chris M. Thomasson
29 Dec 24 i i  `* Re: We have a new standard!3Lynn McGuire
29 Dec 24 i i   +- Re: We have a new standard!1Chris M. Thomasson
29 Dec 24 i i   `- Re: We have a new standard!1Chris M. Thomasson
29 Dec 24 i `- Re: We have a new standard!1David Brown
1 Jan 25 +* Re: We have a new standard!72Michael S
1 Jan 25 i+* Re: We have a new standard!56Muttley
1 Jan 25 ii+- Re: We have a new standard!1Ross Finlayson
2 Jan 25 ii+* Re: We have a new standard!50David Brown
2 Jan 25 iii+* Re: We have a new standard!47Muttley
2 Jan 25 iiii`* Re: We have a new standard!46David Brown
2 Jan 25 iiii +* Re: We have a new standard!42Muttley
2 Jan 25 iiii i`* Re: We have a new standard!41David Brown
2 Jan 25 iiii i +* Re: We have a new standard!10Muttley
2 Jan 25 iiii i i`* Re: We have a new standard!9Keith Thompson
3 Jan 25 iiii i i `* Re: We have a new standard!8Muttley
3 Jan 25 iiii i i  +* Re: We have a new standard!6Keith Thompson
4 Jan 25 iiii i i  i`* Re: We have a new standard!5Muttley
4 Jan 25 iiii i i  i `* Re: We have a new standard!4David Brown
4 Jan 25 iiii i i  i  `* Re: We have a new standard!3Muttley
4 Jan 25 iiii i i  i   `* Re: We have a new standard!2David Brown
4 Jan 25 iiii i i  i    `- Re: We have a new standard!1Muttley
4 Jan 25 iiii i i  `- Re: We have a new standard!1Ross Finlayson
2 Jan 25 iiii i `* Re: We have a new standard!30Sam
3 Jan 25 iiii i  `* Re: We have a new standard!29David Brown
3 Jan 25 iiii i   `* Re: We have a new standard!28Sam
3 Jan 25 iiii i    +* Re: We have a new standard!25Paavo Helde
3 Jan 25 iiii i    i+* Re: We have a new standard!23Sam
3 Jan 25 iiii i    ii+* Re: We have a new standard!5Muttley
3 Jan 25 iiii i    iii`* Re: We have a new standard!4Sam
3 Jan 25 iiii i    iii `* Re: We have a new standard!3Muttley
3 Jan 25 iiii i    iii  `* Re: We have a new standard!2Sam
4 Jan 25 iiii i    iii   `- Re: We have a new standard!1Muttley
3 Jan 25 iiii i    ii+* Re: We have a new standard!4David Brown
3 Jan 25 iiii i    iii`* Re: We have a new standard!3Sam
4 Jan 25 iiii i    iii `* Re: We have a new standard!2David Brown
4 Jan 25 iiii i    iii  `- Re: We have a new standard!1Sam
3 Jan 25 iiii i    ii`* Re: We have a new standard!13Paavo Helde
4 Jan 25 iiii i    ii `* Re: We have a new standard!12Sam
4 Jan 25 iiii i    ii  +- Re: We have a new standard!1Ross Finlayson
4 Jan 25 iiii i    ii  `* Re: We have a new standard!10Paavo Helde
4 Jan 25 iiii i    ii   +- Re: We have a new standard!1Sam
5 Jan 25 iiii i    ii   +- Re: We have a new standard!1wij
6 Jan 25 iiii i    ii   `* Re: We have a new standard!7Muttley
7 Jan 25 iiii i    ii    `* Re: We have a new standard!6Chris Ahlstrom
7 Jan 25 iiii i    ii     +* Re: We have a new standard!4Muttley
8 Jan 25 iiii i    ii     i`* Re: We have a new standard!3Chris Ahlstrom
8 Jan 25 iiii i    ii     i +- Re: We have a new standard!1Keith Thompson
9 Jan 25 iiii i    ii     i `- Re: We have a new standard!1Muttley
8 Jan 25 iiii i    ii     `- Re: We have a new standard!1Sam
4 Jan 25 iiii i    i`- Re: We have a new standard!1Ross Finlayson
3 Jan 25 iiii i    `* Re: We have a new standard!2David Brown
3 Jan 25 iiii i     `- Re: We have a new standard!1Sam
2 Jan 25 iiii `* Re: We have a new standard!3Michael S
2 Jan 25 iiii  `* Re: We have a new standard!2David Brown
2 Jan 25 iiii   `- Re: We have a new standard!1Michael S
2 Jan 25 iii`* Re: We have a new standard!2Keith Thompson
2 Jan 25 ii`* Re: We have a new standard!4Keith Thompson
1 Jan 25 i+* Re: We have a new standard!14Paavo Helde
2 Jan 25 i`- Re: We have a new standard!1Michael S
1 Jan 25 `* Re: We have a new standard!3Rosario19

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal