nothrow by default

H. S. Teoh hsteoh at
Thu Jan 9 20:39:57 UTC 2020

On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 07:05:24PM -0000, Johannes Pfau via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> Am Thu, 09 Jan 2020 08:02:16 -0800 schrieb H. S. Teoh:
> I think everyone who wants to move away from exceptions really wants
> to move away from two things:
> 1) Stack unwinding and the overhead it involves (memory,
>    implementation complexity, ...)
> 2) (Forced) dynamic allocation of error state. How often do you
>    actually use more than 1 word of error state? 

What can you practically throw, though, if you only have 1 word of error
state? I suppose you could store a pointer to some exception object in
there, but then that brings us back to issue (2). Unless you have some
kind of thread-local global for storing exception objects?

> That's basically what Sutter proposes for C++, what I summarized in
>$635$ and what you
> quickly summarized in your idea.
> AFAICS nobody (few people?) wants to get rid of the high-level
> try-catch exception semantics.

That's also my suspicion.  It's not really the exceptions themselves
that people object to, but the associated implementation issues.


Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list